LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
-
Upload
loznjakovic-nebojsa -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
1/36Farming with nature
december2004volume20no.4
Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
2/36
Address:PO Box 2067, 3800 CB Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Visitors address:Zuidsingel 16, 3811 HA Amersfoort
Tel: +31 (0)33 467 38 70, Fax: +31 (0)33 463 24 10
Email: [email protected]
Editorial team
This issue has been compiled by: Electra van Campen,John Hollands, Anita Ingevall, Marilyn Minderhoud-Jones
and Wilma Roem.
Regional editionsLEISA Revista de AgroecologaThe Latin American edition in Spanish can be ordered
from LEISA Revista Peru, A.P. 18-0745, Lima 18, Peru.
Contact: Teresa Gianella-Estrems.
Email: [email protected]
LEISA IndiaThe Indian edition in English can be ordered from AME,
No. 1583,17th Main Road, JP Nagar II Phase,
Bangalore 560 078, India. Contact: K.V.S. Prasad.
Email: [email protected]
SalamThe Indonesian edition in Bahasa Indonesia can be
ordered from Veco Indonesia, JL Letda Kajeng 22,
Den Pasar 80234, Bali, Indonesia. Contact: Rik Thijssen.Email: [email protected]
AGRIDAPEThe West African edition in French can be ordered from
IIED, PO Box 5579, Dakar, Senegal. Contact: Awa Faly Ba.
Email: ag [email protected]
Revista AgriculturasThe Brazilian edition in Portuguese can be ordered
from AS-PTA, Rua Candelria, No. 9, 6 andar Centro,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil 20091-020.
Contact: Paulo Petersen. Email: [email protected]
AdministrationLila Felipie, Marlies Marbus and Natasha Leetion.
SubscriptionsSubscription rate for one year (4 issues): Northern
institutions and international organizations: US$ 45.00
(Euro 45), others US$ 25.00 (Euro 25). Local organiza-tions and individuals in the South can receive the
magazine free of charge on request. To subscribe: write
to ILEIA or send an email to: [email protected]
Back issues are available on the ILEIA website or can
be ordered from ILEIA.
ILEIA websitehttp://www.leisa.info
Design & layoutJan Hiensch, Leusden.
PrintingKoninklijke BDU Grafisch Bedrijf B.V., Barneveld.
FundingThe ILEIA programme is funded by Sida and DGIS.
Cover photoAn elk and her calf on farmland in Northern Sweden.
Photo: Bror Johansson, Windh.
The editors have taken every care to ensure that the
contents of this magazine are as accurate as possible.
The authors have ultimate responsibility, however,
for the content of individual articles.
ISSN: 1569-8424
LEISAMagazine on Low External Input and
Sustainable AgricultureDecember 2004 Volume 20 No. 4
LEISA Magazine is published quarterly by ILEIA
LEISA is about Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. It is about the technical and social options
open to farmers who seek to improve productivity and income in an ecologically sound way. LEISA is about
the optimal use of local resources and natural processes and, if necessary, the safe and efficient use of
external inputs. It is about the empowerment of male and female farmers and the communities who seek to
build their future on the basis of their own knowledge, skills, values, culture and institutions. LEISA is also
about participatory methodologies to strengthen the capacity of farmers and other actors to improve
agriculture and adapt it to changing needs and conditions. LEISA seeks to combine indigenous and
scientific knowledge, and to influence policy formulation in creating an environment conducive for its
further development. LEISA is a concept, an approach and a political message.
ILEIAis the Centre for Information on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture. ILEIA seeks topromote the adoption of LEISA through the LEISA magazines and other publications. It also maintains a
specialized information database and an informative and interactive website on LEISA (www.leisa.info).
The website provides access to many other sources of information on the development of sustainable
agriculture.
Readers are welcome to photocopy and circulate articles.
Please acknowledge the LEISA Magazine, however, and send us a copy of your publication.
14 The Talamanca Initiative
Diego Lynch
The Talamanca region in the south of
Costa Rica is the countrys poorest
region in socio-economic terms, butthe richest in terms of biodiversity
and tropical forest ecosystems. To
preserve this biodiversity, the
Amistad International Peace Park has
been established, covering parts of
Costa-Rica as well as Panama. Cacao
production was a major source of
income in the area and farmers were
hard hit when the devastating cacao
pod rot struck in 1979, forcing them
to abandon cacao production and
revert to tree felling, short-term
cropping and selling their land. Toreverse this situation a local NGO,
Asociacin ANAI, encouraged
farmers to diversify their farming
systems based on perennial crops and
ecological principles. They also
encouraged farmer organization and
developed a marketing cooperative
which introduced and developed the
growing and marketing of certified
organic products. In addition, locally-
owned ecotourism initiatives are now
being developed to conserve the
environment and protect livelihoods.
18 Cultivating wetlandsin Bangladesh
A.H. M. Rezaul Haq, Tapan Kumar Ghosal
and Pritam Ghosh
Bangladesh has the highest wetland to total land
ratio in the world. Cultivation on floating beds,
called soil-less agriculture or hydroponics, is an
indigenous practice in the south-western part of
Bangladesh. This practice is now receiving
renewed interest as a potential solution forfarmers whose lands have been waterlogged, and
also for landless people. In addition to being
highly productive, this system of cultivation
makes use of local resources, in particular the
masses of rapidly growing water hyacinths that
choke the waterways. It is also an
environmentally sustainable way to make use of
wetland areas.
http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/http://www.leisa.info/ -
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
3/36
4 Editorial
7 Farming with the wildDaniel Imhoff and Jo Ann Baumgartner
10 Community management of Afroalpine highlands in EthiopiaZelealem Tefera
12 Indigenous honeybees: allies for mountain farmers
Farooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung
14 The Talamanca InitiativeDiego Lynch
17 Harmonizing production and biodiversityMiguel A. Altieri, Angela Maria Burgos Herrera,Heiber Yovanny Armero Zambrano and Juan Martinez
18 Cultivating wetlands in BangladeshA. H. M. Rezaul Haq, Tapan Kumar Ghosal and Pritam Ghosh
21 A buffer zone for Sinharaja forest?Ajith Tennekoon
22 Pangalengan farmers: friends of the forestSamwel Wandera
24 Saving the forest through livestock intensificationPeter Spierenburg, Karma Tshering and D.S. Rai
26 Holistic management of African rangelandsConstance L. Neely and Jody Butterfield
29 Tell us your story!
29 Themes for 2005
30 Field notes
31 New books
32 Sources
34 Networking
36 Organic farming supports biodiversityAndy Evans and Ian Alexander
7 Farming with the wild
Daniel Imhoff and Jo Ann Baumgartner
D E A R R E A D E R S
In North America, present day agriculture plays a major role
in the rapid reduction of wild animal and bird populations.
Agriculture has converted more and more natural habitatsinto land suitable for highly intensive, large-scale crop and
livestock production. With the loss of habitats comes the loss
of species, and with the intensive production comes the
pollution of land, air and water, further reducing the
possibilities for wild life. A movement is now under way to
counter these effects, which can be described as conservation
based agriculture, agroecology, permaculture or farming
with the wild. The different expressions of this movement
have one aim in common: to combine the goals of
agriculture and conservation.
The Guassa area of Menz in the central
highlands of Ethiopia is one the very few
areas in Ethiopia where a community-
based natural resource management
system is operating. Known as the
Qero system, this system has ancient
roots but has managed to adapt to
radically changing conditions. Over the
years, it has enabled the sustainableutilization of this biodiversity-rich alpine
ecosystem, which is home to many
endemic species. Today theEthiopian
Wolf Conservation Programme is
assisting the communities to ensure the
future viability of this system.
10 Community managementof Afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia
Zelealem Tefera
In earlier issues we have focused on the importance of maintaining and enhancing
biodiversity on farm. Attempts to conserve wild biodiversity, on the other hand, have mainly
focused on establishing wildlife reserves. Today, however, agriculture and human settlements
have expanded to impact on every corner of the earth and reserves are far from enough tomanage the biodiversity crisis. The way we manage agriculture will have a major impact on the
conservation of biodiversity, both on and off the farm. In this issue, we have tried to highlight
some of the attempts that are taking place to achieve food production while preserving or
enhancing wild biodiversity. We are grateful for the collaboration ofEcoagriculture Partners
on this issue, in particular Sara Scherr, and also for the information and support provided by the
Equator Initiative (see Networking, p. 34).
In this magazine you will find a poster enclosed. We hope you like it and that you will display it
where it can attract many new subscribers to theLEISA Magazine and thereby increase the
growing network of LEISA readers all over the world. We would like to take the opportunity to
thank those who have let us use their photos for the poster: Will Critchley, James Jayaraj
and Anita Ingevall; and also Teresa Gianella, Jorge Chvez Tafur and Gaby Matsumoto of the
LEISA Revista de Agroecologa team in Peru, for revising their original poster design for our use.
We would also like to thank all the readers that have replied to the Readers Survey. To date, we
have received 1150 replies. Most of those that have replied have been kind enough to write long
comments and it is really encouraging to read about all the initiatives that our readers are
involved in.
The Editors
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
4/36
Editorial
As human beings, we exist as part of a web of life that includes
plants, animals, and microorganisms, as well as the physical
environment. This web is constantly changing and adapting,
but we need to ensure that it stays more or less in balance. Animportant factor in this balance is the diversity of life or
biodiversity (see box).
Biodiversity refers to the variability of all organisms, including
their genetic diversity and the diversity of ecosystems in which
they live. Diversity is important for two main reasons to
maintain healthy, balanced ecosystems in the wide range of
environmental conditions present on earth at many different
scales, and to provide resilience to change.
A range of organisms help to maintain healthy ecosystems
through the processes of which they are a part. Together, these
processes contribute to the ecosystem services which continue
to enable life on earth. For example, the protection andmaintenance of productive soil and water resources through
processes such as maintenance of water quality, reduction of
runoff, improved water infiltration, and maintenance of soil
fertility through organic matter decomposition and erosion
control. Plants and animals also contribute to carbon
sequestration, pollination, dispersal of seeds and the provision of
habitats for all the organisms that help maintain healthy
ecosystems. On a global scale, a diversity of ecosystems is
important to regulate climate and the water cycle, and to provide
resilience to global climatic change.
Ecosystem services like clean water, fresh air and fertile soils are
usually taken for granted and regarded as free resources: we donot pay any attention to them as long as they continue to function.
However, when they start breaking down, we are faced with
serious problems. Short-term economic goals, increasing
emphasis on ownership of land and decreasing responsibility for
communal and global resources result in the degradation of those
resources. And yet, ecosystem degradation on a wider scale
means less water for people, crops and livestock; lower crop,
livestock and tree production; and greater risk of natural disasters.
For rural people, managing biodiversity has always been a central
part of their livelihood strategies. Biodiversity contributes in
different ways to agriculture and rural livelihoods either directly,
by providing food, medicines, timber, fuel, fodder, organic
fertilizer, or cash income or indirectly by providing ecosystemservices such as biological pest control, pollination or organic
matter decomposition. However, some organisms such as weeds,
parasites, pests or invasive species can also reduce agricultural
production or negatively affect ecosystem services. Wild relatives
of domesticated crop and animal species are also important
resources for the genetic improvement of domestic species. Wild
species that are not directly important to agriculture can
sometimes cause problems for farmers. However, these species
can be important for the balance of the wider ecosystem.
Biodiversity provides an important safety net, helping farmers
to cope with the risks posed by pests and diseases, as well as
environmental and social changes. It also forms a part ofcultural identity. In a world where more and more geographical
barriers are being broken, not only plants and animals, but also
humans are subject to increasing pressure from outside their
usual ecosystem. It is becoming more and more important to
4
maintain the cultural identities that have developed together with
a particular environment.
For over two decades, ILEIA has considered Farming with
nature to mean farming in a way that builds on natural
processes, maintains a healthy environment and supports
livelihoods at the local level. This issue ofLEISA Magazine
takes one step further: it looks at the contribution farming can
make to the sustainability of life on earth on a broader scale
and the importance of wild biodiversity for the maintenance of
the healthy landscapes and watersheds we all need to survive.
Biodiversity or agricultural development?Agricultural development has in most cases been pursued
without considering its effect on biodiversity. Likewise, efforts
to conserve biodiversity and protect watersheds and other keyecosystem services have typically relied on the establishment of
protected areas that officially exclude agriculture. This
segregation of farming and environmental conservation is
no longer viable in many parts of the world. At least half the
worlds temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest ecosystems
are dominated by crop and pasture production, mostly in low-
productivity systems. Most of the over 100 000 areas that have
been set aside to preserve wildlife and ecosystems contain
significant amounts of land used for agriculture, while many
more are islands in a sea of farms, pastures and production
forests that are managed in ways that are incompatible with the
long-term survival of species and ecosystems.
In addition, pressure on agricultural land is increasing. Globaldemand for food and fibre is expected to grow by at least
50 percent in the next few decades, and much more in low-income
developing countries. Nearly 40 percent of the earths total land
area is already used for agriculture, and there is very little land left
that is considered potentially suitable for agricultural production.
To make matters worse, productivity is declining substantially on
many agricultural lands and each year, some 5 to 10 million
hectares of cropland is taken out of production because of soil
erosion, nutrient depletion, salinization and waterlogging.
Conserving biodiversity in agricultural landscapesLEISA farming practices contribute to the maintenance of
ecosystem services on a local scale. In addition, small-scalefarms are in general more biodiverse than larger farms, as they
are often more ecologically and intensively managed (see Altieri
et al., p. 17). However, to effectively conserve wild biodiversity
in agriculture-dominated ecosystems, we need to move beyondLEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004
Farming with nature
Biological diversity or Biodiversity refers to the variety, distribution
and abundance of the different plants, animals and microorganisms,
the genetic diversity they contain and the ecological functions and
processes they perform at local, regional or landscape levels.
An Ecosystem is a system of living organisms (e.g. plants, animals,
and microorganisms) together with their physical environment and
the interacting processes between them. Ecosystems do not have
fixed boundaries in time or space, since their components can change
rapidly or slowly, depending on many different environmental factors.
A Habitat refers to the specific environmental conditions required for
a particular species to thrive.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
5/36
Movements (IFOAM) has now begun an initiative to more
systematically identify criteria for organic farmers to achieve
wild biodiversity conservation as well as sustainable production.
Healthy agricultural systems support ecosystem functions and
contribute positively to the health of the surrounding
environment. Tennekoon, for example (p. 21), describes the
efforts of an NGO in Sri Lanka to improve cultivation methods
for tea in the buffer zone of the countrys last viable remnant ofvirgin tropical lowland rainforest. By introducing more
sustainable agricultural practices and controlling erosion, they
have effectively created a new buffer zone for the forest, and this
has slowly helped reduce the siltation of the Sinharaja watershed.
At the same time, they have also increased sustainability and
productivity of tea production on already cultivated lands.
Leaving space for wild speciesProtecting and restoring wildlife habitats across the landscape can
be achieved through linking protected natural areas by using in-
between spaces to provide corridors and networks. Non-
cultivated areas on and off farms can be used effectively, for
example by allowing natural vegetation to grow along riverbanks,
irrigation canals and natural waterways; on uncultivated stripsbetween crop fields; on roadsides; or as windbreaks or live fences.
Other areas such as forests, woodlots and parks can also harbour
significant biodiversity if they are managed appropriately.
Communities are often willing to protect these areas when they
have a say in their development and management, and where
they are designed to provide local benefits as well as broader
conservation goals. Practical examples of farmers and herders or
ranchers deliberately making space for wild biodiversity are not
yet commonplace, but do exist. Imhoff and Baumgartner (p. 7)
present a number of examples from the United States where
farmers are using organic methods, while at the same timedeveloping habitat networks for wildlife throughout farming
landscapes. In Zimbabwe, holistic resource management
approaches are regenerating grazing areas while also allowing
for the presence of wildlife (Neely and Butterfield, p. 26).
5
Photo:JohnHollands
Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) strolling over a recently sown
potato field in Kanglung, East Bhutan.
farm level and consider the effects of management practices on
both humans and wildlife, on a landscape scale. A landscape
is a mosaic of land uses with a particular pattern of topography,
vegetation, land use and settlement, usually kilometres-wide.
Ecosystems must be managed as a whole with protected areas as
reservoirs of wild biodiversity within a matrix of land that is
managed to protect its habitat value, while also providing food
and income to people.
Over half of the worlds most species-rich areas contain large
human populations whose livelihoods depend on farming,
forestry, herding or fisheries, many plagued by chronic poverty
and hunger. In these areas, the potential for conflict between
demands for food, ecosystem services and rural livelihoods
reaches a peak. Managing landscapes for both agricultural
production and biodiversity conservation is therefore particularly
important in and around protected areas of high biodiversity
value. It is also of paramount importance in biologically degraded
landscapes, where ecosystem services essential for sustainable
agriculture and local livelihoods need urgent rehabilitation.
Managing entire ecosystems or entire landscapes with the goals
to both feed people and protect wild biodiversity can provide along-term approach to securing the livelihoods of local people
and be a cost-effective approach to biodiversity conservation.
There are two interrelated approaches to achieving these goals.
The first is to maintain healthy and diverse agricultural
production systems that produce the goods we need while still
maintaining important ecosystem services for example
through LEISA practices. The second is to leave space and
habitats for wildlife in unused areas of the farm and
surrounding areas. This is important for the wildlife itself and
the balance of wider ecosystems, but it can also benefit farmers
by providing habitats for beneficial organisms such as
pollinators and other beneficial insects.
Maintaining ecologically healthy agriculturalproduction systemsConventional agricultural development and intensification has
contributed to the decline of biodiversity in agricultural production
systems. These agroecosystems have been dramatically simplified
in order to bring them under full human control by clearing
native vegetation; modifying hydrological systems and water
sources; by radically simplifying the types of vegetative cover; and
by replacing natural processes with chemical inputs. To make
agricultural production systems more friendly to biodiversity
requires a change of management practices in order to work with
nature as far as possible, instead of attempting to simply control it.
This includes a reduction in the use of chemical inputs, changes inthe management of vegetation, soil and water resources; and an
increase in the diversity of domestic species grown on the farm,
particularly perennial crops, grasses and trees whose production
does not require repeated cultivation.
Reducing the use of chemical inputs can help improve farmland
habitats for wildlife. This can also be very important for
productivity: important pollinators like bees, for example, are
very susceptible to chemical pesticides. In the United Kingdom,
a study on biodiversity in organic and conventional farms
demonstrated clear benefits of organic systems to biodiversity
throughout the whole food chain. This was thought to be mainly
due to the absence of inorganic pesticides or fertilizers, as wellas the mix of livestock and crop production and better boundary
infrastructure, especially hedgerows, resulting from the
livestock element of organic farms (see Evans and Alexander,
p. 36). The International Federation of Organic Agricultural
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM
BER2004
>>
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
6/36
Nature areas, even if they are unsuitable for regular use,
can provide an important resource bank for surrounding
communities. In the Afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia,
communities have been protecting the Guassa area for centuries in
order to periodically and sustainably use the resources it provides
grass for thatch, grazing and fuelwood (Tefera, p. 10). In the
United States, a similar strategy is used by the Malpai Borderlands
Group on ranchlands although in this case the land is owned not
by the communities but by a benevolent rancher (p. 9).
One strategy for leaving space can be to intensify production
in one area, in order to reduce pressure on another. Spierenburg
et al. (p. 24) provide an example of how park management staff
and the government extension agency in Bhutan are joining
together to relieve grazing pressure on old growth forest by
assisting farmers to intensify livestock production in the area.
Farming communities as stewards of biodiversityIt is often necessary to combine many different elements of land
use and management to achieve healthy ecosystems at a
landscape scale. This requires action by farmers, communities
and broader land use initiatives. The Talamanca Initiative in
Costa Rica, for example, is helping farmers to maintain a very
biodiverse farming system based on ecological production
methods and diverse products (Lynch, p. 14). In this way, the
farmers are helping to preserve the Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor which links many smaller reserves with theAmistad
park, thereby linking a wide network of habitats in this
extremely biodiversity-rich area. Ecotourism has now become
an important source of additional income for the farmers.
There are also other examples from around the world where
local communities play a critical role in conserving biodiversity.
A recent review found that forest communities conserve over
400 million hectares more than the total land area of public
protected areas. In Indonesia, displaced farmers have revitalizeda farmers organization and are now working together with the
Department of Forestry to gain their livelihoods from the forest
in an environmentally friendly way and at the same time acting
as guardians of the forest.
6
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004
>>
Skylark.
Photo:ChrisGomersall/rspb-images.com
New management practices and technologies may sometimes be
needed to develop systems that enhance both production and
conservation, particularly in more intensively managed farming
systems. But in many cases, the source of good solutions lies
embedded in traditional knowledge and technologies. Haq et al.
(p. 18) describe a story from Bangladesh that shows how an
adaptation of the traditional practice of cultivating on floating
beds has helped a community to deal with an environmental
change. Traditional practices have also proven an especially richsource of modern innovation in pastoral systems, as illustrated
in Zimbabwe (Neely and Butterfield), in agroforest systems
(Altieri), and in mountainous regions (Ahmad et al., p. 12).
Thinking long termRealistically, landscape management that successfully combines
the goals of biodiversity conservation and agricultural production
will require the support of many different stakeholders.
Integrated approaches to participatory landscape planning and
stakeholder negotiation can provide a good foundation for this
work. Yet, a range of incentives for agricultural development still
work against the small-scale farmer and promote agrochemical-
based intensification and the destruction of biodiversity and
ecosystem functions. Change on a global scale will not bepossible without major changes in policy, trade and economic
systems. Here, organizations likeEcoagriculture Partners may
be able to play a significant role by facilitating dialogue and
collaboration among farmer and community organizations,
conservation organizations, agricultural researchers, the food
industry, municipalities and public agencies to help coordinate
their efforts and to mobilize policy reform.
Much can be also done at local level to improve the synergy
between peoples livelihoods and maintaining healthy
ecosystems that include wildlife. Where people have lived for
centuries they have usually developed a successful system for
living with the environment in a sustainable way. This isbecoming increasingly rare, as people everywhere are subject to
migration and many different kinds of upheavals. In many cases
there is a need to rebuild livelihood security, social capital, and
an understanding of the importance of maintaining the
environment in the long term.
Farmers and rural communities can become leaders in
environmental stewardship and demonstrate their continuing
central role in national development. It is important to
strengthen the capacity of farming communities to play this role,
by re-orienting conservation, technical assistance, research and
other institutions to support them. Education and training
programmes need to explicitly link production and biodiversity
perspectives, objectives and strategies. Farming communitiesneed to be actively involved in designing and championing
national conservation policies. They can advocate for a more
enabling policy environment for small-scale, ecologically-based
farming a policy environment that rewards and enables
farming communities to be effective environmental stewards at
the same time as meeting their own needs, in a way that
maintains the health of the wider ecosystem.
Acknowledgements
This editorial has been developed together with Sara Scherr ofEcoagriculture
Partners (see Networking, p. 34).
References
- McNeely, J. and S. Scherr, 2003. Ecoagriculture: strategies to feed the world andsave wild biodiversity. Island Press, London, UK.
- Hodgkin, T.; K. Atta-Krah; J. Thompson; D. Jarvis; C. Hoogendoorn and
S. Padulosi, 2004. Managing genetic diversity in agroecosystems:state of the art
and implications for Ecoagriculture. Invited paper for International Ecoagriculture
Conference and PractitionersFair, September 27- October 1, 2004, Nairobi, Kenya.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
7/36
diverted for irrigated agriculture. Around the world those
irrigation systems remain remarkably inefficient, wasting
precious water resources. Because of many factors including
dams, agricultural pollution, and the draining of wetlands for
agriculture about one-third of the worlds freshwater fish are
now extinct, threatened, or endangered.
Here are some other alarming statistics about industrial
agricultures impacts on the North American aquatic habitats:
On average, twenty-five percent of groundwater that is
used for agriculture in the United States is not recharged or
filtered back into the underground reservoir;
Ninety-eight percent of U.S. rivers have been dammed.
This severely impacts the ecological function of river
systems, the seasonal flows and abundance, and affects the
diversity of species that depend on river habitats;
Sixty percent of U.S. rivers are polluted by agricultural
sedimentation, excessive nutrients and pesticides.
The increasing large-scale production of animals in massive
confined animal feeding operations also creates devastating
ecological impacts. The concentration of thousands of pigs
stacked in cages on top of one another, or dairy cows in
operations as large as small cities, generates toxic gasses and
groundwater pollution, raises ethical questions and threatens
human health. There are other negative impacts as well:
Converting grasslands to millions of hectares of maize and
soybean monocultures to feed confined animals leads to
groundwater contamination, loss of topsoil and the
widespread decline of many grassland songbird species;
Excess nitrogen and nutrients flowing into the MississippiRiver mainly from fertilizer runoff and animal manure from
feed farms in the Upper Midwest of the USA contribute to
an approximately 13 500 square kilometre dead zone of
oxygen depletion in the Gulf of Mexico.
Daniel Imhoff and Jo Ann Baumgartner
In the world of sustainable agriculture, we hear a lot about the
term biodiversity. This might refer positively to the protection
of soil organisms such as earthworms or mycorrhyzal fungi. Or it
could refer negatively to the devastating loss of traditional cropdiversity and the dwindling numbers of plant and animal
varieties and breeds that are maintained and used by humans.
It is less often, however, that we hear people speaking about
wild biodiversity in dialogues about sustainable agriculture,
or about the healthy living spaces or habitats needed to
support native flora and fauna in the areas where agriculture
takes place. In some ways this is understandable. After all,
agriculture at its very root involves the domestication of the
wild. Agricultural operations commonly reduce complex
landscapes into zones of intensive production for just a handful
of crops, or more often, a single monoculture.
What has become particularly apparent in North America,however, is modern agricultures role in the biodiversity
crisis. Over the past two centuries, agriculture production has
converted more and more native areas to agricultural lands
from river valleys to grasslands, to wetlands, uplands and
woodlands. In order to compete in global markets, to pay for
expensive machinery and inputs, or simply to create clean
farms without weeds, more and more natural vegetation has
been erased from farmlands. With the clearing of natural
vegetation comes the loss of plant and animal species. The
result is that wild biodiversity has been pushed further and
further into isolated pockets in the landscape. Agriculture has
become the leading cause of species endangerment on the North
American continent and the situation is not that different inother regions throughout the world.
Consider agricultures unquenchable thirst for water. More than
two-thirds of the worlds available fresh water supplies are now
7
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM
BER2004
Farming with the wild
This photo shows the Animas Valley in southwest New Mexico. This is part of the Gray Ranch, owned by one of approximately twenty landownerswho belong to the Malpai Borderlands Group.
Photo:D.Imhoff
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
8/36
Today, roughly two-thirds of public, private, and tribal lands in
the USA are used for agriculture, either in grazing, haying or
row cropping. This spread of agriculture, primarily to support
the grain-fed livestock industry, has had follow-on effects across
the whole landscape. Half of the wetlands in the lower 48 states
of the USA have been lost in the last century. Each year, some
670 million birds are exposed to pesticides in the United States,
and 10 percent die as a result. In order to protect livestock from
predators, an estimated 100 000 coyotes, bobcats, bears, wolves,and mountain lions are killed each year by U.S. Department of
Agricultures Wildlife Services. It is not surprising, then, that
farming contributes to 42 percent of the endangered species
listed in the United States, and ranching to 26 percent. At best,
only 9 percent of U.S. lands have been protected as natural areas.
The protection of biodiversity therefore depends on the
protection, restoration, and expansion of wildlife habitat in
existing agricultural lands.
Conservation-based agricultureThe good news is that efforts have been underway for some time
to combine agriculture and biodiversity conservation. This
movement can be described by a number of terms: conservation-
based agriculture, agroecology, agroforestry, ecoagriculture,permaculture, orfarming with the wild. In fact, the idea of
integrating farming and conservation has deep roots in the North
American environmental movement. Defining what he called
biotic farming in 1939, ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote:
A good farm must be one where the wild flora and fauna has
lost acreage without losing its existence.
In the past decade, a growing number of farmers, ranchers, land
trusts, government agencies and consumers are finding that
local agricultural operations can not only provide essential
sources of nutritious food, but also critical habitat for wild
species. Native plant specialists are seeking out remnants ofprairies and woodlands and are using local seeds and plants to
bring farm edges, riparian areas, and marginally productive
fields back to life. In the Sky Islands region of the south-western
United States, community organizers, conservationists, ranchers
and farmers have been working for over a decade to build the
public will and develop strategic plans to connect protected
wilderness through corridors that provide stepping stones for
pollinators, allow lightning-ignited wildfire to travel through
selected grasslands, and offer safe passage for large
carnivores such as jaguars and Mexican wolves. Grass farming
is becoming a preferred method of raising dairy and meat cattle
in areas with year-round rainfall, an alternative to massive
confined animal feeding operations that house tens or even
hundreds of thousands of animals on a single farm. Croppingsystems are being tailored toward specific climate
characteristics or the needs of threatened species. Predator
friendly ranchers are learning to coexist with large carnivores
by emphasizing careful breed selection, improved fencing,
guard animals, and more hands-on management techniques.
Following are three case studies:
Audubon Californias Yolo County LandownerStewardship ProgramIn an industrial agricultural region of Californias Central Valley,
a county-wide movement is underway to reverse decades of
conventional clean farming practices. Yolo Countys farming
with the wild movement began like many initiatives around thecountry, with the efforts of a few brave individuals. Twenty years
ago, unsatisfied with a landscape void of any native habitat along
ditch banks, between fields, and along roads, John and Marsha
Anderson began bringing the edges of their 200 hectare property
Hedgerow Farms back to life. A weed-free farmscape doesnt
have to mean vegetation free, explains Anderson.
Anderson studied Californias original oak savanna ecosystems
to create hedgerows and buffer strips of native grasses, shrubs,
and trees between f ields. Vegetation was re-established along the
irrigation canal that runs through the farm. Seasonal wetlands
were restored in low-lying areas. Ponds were built at the bottom
of furrow-irrigated fields to filter water and runoff and provideyear-round wetland habitats. Eventually, over 50 species of native
perennial grasses, forbs, rushes, shrubs, and trees were planted
around field borders, roadsides, riverbanks, and other unused
strips of the farm. Two decades later, beavers, carnivores, dozens
of bird species including three types of owls, and up to ten
threatened or endangered species f ind haven at Hedgerow Farms.
Research scientists from the University of California found that
the hedgerows provided a year-round supply of nectar and
pollen sources for beneficial insects and pollinators, thereby
contributing positively to the farms output. The Yolo County
Resource Conservation District also took notice of the important
habitat restoration underway and began developing both
expertise and cost-share funds to support regional landowners.
Inspired by the efforts at Hedgerow Farms, more of the countys
farmers and ranchers initiated restoration projects on their
properties. Planting of perennial grasses, prescribed burns for
weed and vegetation control, the installation of corridors along
waterways, tailwater ponds and stock ponds, as well as therevegetation of irrigation canals and waterways, are becoming
standard practices throughout the region. Partnering with
landowners, local agencies and other groups, the county now has
an ambitious plan to create habitat linkages on both public and
8
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004
This photo shows intensive grazing in a pasture at Enchanted Meadows
dairy farm in southeastern Minnesota. By carefully rotating the
lightweight, climate-adapted Ayrshire dairy cattle to rested pastures,farmer Art Thicke runs a profitable operation free of antibiotics or
hormones (for the animals) and free of herbicides, pesticides, or
fertilizers on the pastures. More importantly, Thicke keeps cattle away
from important edge habitat near the woods until after the late spring
nesting season, in an attempt to protect grassland bird species greatly
at risk from habitat loss.
Photo:D.
Imhoff
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
9/36
Grass-based pasture systemsIn the Blufflands region of southeastern Minnesota, a few
kilometres from the Mississippi River, lives a farming family
that cares almost as much about resident prairie birds as they do
about their modest herd of carefully bred Ayrshire dairy cows.
Owners Art and Jean Thicke prefer the Ayrshires because they
are hardier, lighter in weight, and longer-lived than conventional
Holsteins. By frequently rotating the herd between pastures,
they can also maintain critical breeding habitat for many at-risksongbird species, such as meadowlarks, bobolinks, dickcissels,
and savanna and vesper sparrows.
The Thickes intensive rotational management system is based
on maintaining a balance between activity and rest. The
approximately 40 hectares of hilly pastures on Enchanted
Acres have been divided into 42 grazing units, just under a
hectare in size. The 90-plus dairy herd is usually moved twice
per day. By carefully responding to changing conditions on the
land, as well as to the seasonal behaviour of local wildlife, the
Thickes have created a stable ecosystem within which to make
their living as productive farmers. No chemical fertilizers or
herbicides have been applied to the pastures for 25 years, and
the land hasnt been ploughed in 15 years. And while alfalfa,corn, and soybean farms throughout the Midwest lose topsoil to
erosion on an annual basis, living pastures such as these keep
soil from washing away and help maintain a healthy water cycle.
In fact, they have much in common with the prairie ecosystems
that previously existed on this regions fragile soils.
The Thickes have been operating their grass-fed dairy long
before management-intensive rotational grazing systems
became fashionable. Their approach is based largely on intuition
rather than prescribed management techniques, and the results
are healthy cattle sharing the land with other species in the
biological community.
ConclusionIt is becoming increasingly obvious to leading practitioners of
sustainable agriculture in the USA that we must view our farms
as natural habitats, not just as production units. Experience also
shows that incorporating natural habitats into agricultural areas
has measurable benefits, including the increase of soil
organisms that create healthy growing environments; the
increase of pollinators and beneficial insects that help increase
yields and control pests; and stable waterways that protect water
quality, prevent erosion and help comply with federal and state
regulations. Beyond these direct agricultural benefits, however,
lie essential contributions to society and the biological
community in general. To the extent we agriculturalists succeed
at protecting wild biodiversity, we also profoundly deepen whatwe mean by sustainability.
Daniel Imhoff. Watershed Media, 451 Hudson Street, Healdsburg, California,
95448 USA. Email: [email protected]
Jo Ann Baumgartner.Wild Farm Alliance, P.O. Box 2570, Watsonville, California,
95077 USA. Email: [email protected] ; website: http://wildfarmalliance.org
References
- Stein, Bruce; Lynn. Kutner and Jonathan Adams, 2000. Precious heritage:
the status of biodiversity in the United States.New York, NY. Oxford University
Press.
- Foreman, Dave, 2004. Rewilding North America:a vision for conservation in the
21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2004.
- Imhoff, Daniel, 2003. Farming with the wild: enhancing biodiversity on farmsand ranches. San Francisco. Sierra Club Books/Watershed Media.
- Jackson, Dana and Laura Jackson, 2002. The farm as natural habitat:
reconnecting food systems with ecosystems. Washington D.C. Island Press.
- U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1996. Americas private land: a geography of hope.
USDA, Washington D.C, USA. http://209.234.81.2/product.asp?ID=17
private lands on the boundaries of urban expansion throughout
this largely rural area. These efforts will protect riparian areas and
link critical upper rangeland habitats, an essential strategy to
maximize the protection of native species, such as native
pollinators.
Throughout the county, these programmes also use restoration
projects as opportunities for field visits and hands-on learning
for students with limited access to rural areas. The Student andLandowner Educational Watershed Stewardship Project, for
example, brings students from regional schools to participate in
habitat plantings and monitoring efforts up to 50 days per year.
The Malpai Borderlands GroupIdentified as one of the pioneering organizations in the
conservation ranching movement, the Malpai Borderlands Group
consists of approximately two dozen landowners whose ranches
collectively span nearly 400 000 hectares in South Western New
Mexico, South Eastern Arizona, and Northern Mexico. The
Group was formed in the early 1990s by ranchers concerned
about the long-term effects of fire suppression and overgrazing,
which had caused critical invasions of brush and woody species
into what had formerly been luxuriant grasslands. At a time whenanti-grazing activism became politically contentious, the
founders of the Malpai Borderlands Group forged an alliance
based on the common appreciation for the open space that un-
fragmented ranch lands provide. Another unifying concern was
that their activism should be guided by sound science.
Fires have always been a significant natural process in
maintaining the natural grassland ecosystem. Among the first
concrete efforts of the Malpai Borderlands Group was the
establishment of theBootheel Fire Management Plan. Based on
five years of scientific research, as well as consultation with
state and federal agencies and private landowners, the plan
identified landowners within the region who were willing toallow lightning-ignited and prescribed wildfires to burn on their
properties as a means to reduce shrub encroachment and
rejuvenate grasslands. A simple, colour-coded fire map was
compiled including owner names, boundary lines, and contact
numbers. The colour coding explained whether fires should be
left to burn, put out as soon as possible or if the landowner
would like the opportunity to decide. Today, as a result of this
initiative, tens of thousands of hectares of grasslands now
benefit from the restorative effects of occasional burning.
Another important community initiative developed by the Malpai
Borderlands Group is the grassbank. With neighbouring
ranchers experiencing a number of consecutive years of serious
drought conditions, Malpai Borderlands Group co-founder DrumHadley offered grazing allotments on his extensive Gray Ranch
as a regional safety valve. These short-term arrangements
permitted neighbouring ranchers to move their cattle to the
abundant grasslands of the Gray Ranch, while restoring their own
pastures from the ill effects of overgrazing. In return for the
grazing privileges, grassbank participants enrolled selected lands
in permanent conservation easements legal agreements to
protect against subdivision. With an emphasis on protecting un-
fragmented habitats, the Malpai Borderlands Group grassbank
programme has allowed tens of thousands of grasslands to be
reseeded and rejuvenated by fire, and has registered
approximately 18 000 hectares in permanent conservation
easements. This model has been replicated as a regionalconservation tool in various communities, but it needs to be
carefully studied with the objective to optimize grassland
restoration, rather than simply to maximize grazing in arid
regions.
9
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM
BER2004
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
10/36
10
Zelealem Tefera
Environmental conservation has often been characterized by atop-down approach that includes the establishment of protected
areas, enforcement of legislation and the assumption of
ownership of biodiversity by the State. This approach reflects
the suspicion of governments that local communities are
incapable of managing their own resources. Thus, while these
approaches have ensured the survival of a few populations of
certain species and ecosystems and contributed to foreign
exchange earnings, they have been slow to integrate local people
into resource management and decision-making activities. Local
communities who live near protected areas and whose
populations have invariably grown, are instead faced with a
rapidly diminishing natural resource base, often resulting in
conflicts between local communities and environmental
conservation authorities.
There are exceptions, however including ancient examples of
local communities establishing natural resource management
systems that are essential to the peoples livelihoods and also to
the persistence of biodiversity. These examples not only need to
be closely examined to reveal how they work, but they also
deserve our full support in a changing and threatened natural
world. Following is an experience from Ethiopia, a country which
has suffered untold environmental disasters and biodiversity loss.
Community-based natural resource managementIn the Central Highlands of Ethiopia, there is a small (111 km2)
patch of land which has persisted in its current, relatively pristinestate for the past four hundred years. The area, called Guassa by
the local Menzi people, ranges from 3200 to 3700 metres above
sea level. It is part of the Amhara Regional State of North Shoa,
265 km northeast of the national capital Addis Ababa.
The natural resource management system of the Guassa area
dates back to the 17th Century. Given that it still persists, this
makes it one of the oldest conservation areas in sub-Saharan
Africa. The area was set aside as a resource for the community,
who use it for harvesting the Guassa grass (Festuca sp.) for
thatch, for grazing livestock, and for harvesting shrubs for
fuelwood. In essence, the use of these resources was restricted to
a limited number of users during a limited period of time. The
right to use the resources of the Guassa area depended on theprevailing land rights and tenure system, which was based on
ancestry and controlled by the Ethiopian Coptic Church.
As with any restricted system, it required regulation and
enforcement. The local people developed an indigenous institution,
known as Qero. This entailed each of the two user communitiesin the area democratically electing an elder as a headman, called
the Abba Qera. The Abba Qera was then responsible for protecting
and regulating the use of the Guassa area.
The Qero system could entail the closure of the Guassa area
from any type of use by the community for as long as three to
five consecutive years. The length of closure depended largely
upon the growth of the Guassa grass. When both of the Abba
Qeras felt that the grass was ready for harvest, they would
announce the date of the opening to the community. This usually
took place at public gatherings such as church ceremonies,
market places, or burial ceremonies.
The area was usually only open for use at the height of the dryseason around February or March each year. There was also a
sequence to its use: only once the grass cutting was over were
livestock allowed to graze the Guassa area. When the wet season
started the use of the area was once again prohibited, giving the
resources time to regenerate. The traditional date of closing each
year was the 12th of July, the date for breaking the second most
important fasting season of the Coptic Church.
While the area was closed, the prohibition of its use was strictly
enforced by the users themselves. Under the leadership of the
Abba Qera, household heads regularly patrolled the area. Every
able male household head was obliged to take part. Failure to
participate would result in severe punishment in someinstances, punishment could even result in the burning of the
absentees house.
Drastic changesIn 1974 a popular uprising, a revolution, swept the country.
On March 4th 1975, the new revolutionary government
proclaimed the nationalization of all rural land. Over large parts
of Ethiopia, the relationship between tenant and landlord was
dissolved. The proclamation abolished private and community
ownership of land and gave all farmers the same right to
cultivate land within the framework of state ownership. It also
established peasant associations to distribute and regulate the
use of land. As a result, the Qero system was abolished, together
with its mechanisms of natural resource management. Thechanges also gave people who had earlier been excluded from
resource use, uncontrolled access to the Guassa area.
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004
Community management ofAfroalpine highlands in Ethiopia
Photo:StuartWilliams
An Ethiopian wolf seeking rats among giant lobelias in the Afroalpine
ecosystem of Guassa-Menz.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
11/36
These include the most endangered canid in the world, the
Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), also known as the Simien fox.
With an estimated 530 individuals in the world, Guassa - Menz
protects one of the major populations. The Afroalpine ecosystem
also harbours astonishing densities of rodents, on which the wolf
preys. The other important species of the area is the endemic
gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada). It is the only surviving
member of a once widespread genus Theropithecus. These
magnificent animals with their lion-like manes are the onlygrazing primates in the world. They aggregate into huge herds of
up to 400 animals. They too deserve the protection afforded to
them by the Guassa area. Bird species have also benefited from
the Qero system and 111 species have been recorded in the area.
One striking feature of the birdlife in the Guassa area is the
abundance of birds of prey that feast, with the wolves, on
abundant rats.
Rain that falls in the Guassa area starts a long journey to the
Mediterranean through the Nile river. Indeed, 26 rivers, springs
and streams have their origin in the area. The ecological service
provided by the protection of the vegetation by the local
community is invaluable to all the downstream users all the way
to Cairo! Finally, among the local communities, the area isrenowned for medicinal plants for human and livestock uses.
Now, through the partnership with theEthiopian Wolf
Conservation Programme, the communities are seeking to
broaden the benefits accrued from the protection of the area and
its unique fauna and flora. Tourists are welcome to enjoy the
area, and the people wish to accrue benefits from the visitors.
ConclusionThe contribution made by the Qero system to the conservation
of highland biodiversity in Ethiopia is comparable with areas
protected under the more formal conservation system of the
country. However, unlike other protected areas, the Guassa areacommunity-based natural resource management system also
provides the community with valuable resources in times of
stress.
In general, indigenous communities have developed ways of life
remarkably tuned to their local environment. Their long
association with their territories has resulted in developing
strong ties to their lands, expressed in customary laws, complex
religious ceremonies, symbolic activities and extremely detailed
knowledge of their resources. Such knowledge may be deeply
coded within traditional lore, handed down and refined from
generation to generation.
The long association with their environment and commitment toremaining there in the future equips indigenous communities for
prudent management of natural resources even by present day
standards. Indigenous communities have held resource
management systems under complex, often overlapping tenure
rights, which share benefits across their community and exclude
non community members. Traditional systems are in effect a
partnership between individuals and their community, where
rules and regulations enshrined within the traditions of the
society ensure the smooth functioning of the system. Indigenous
systems of communal land use may therefore offer greater
promise for sustainable conservation than Western systems.
However, indigenous resource management systems are
undergoing rapid change and it is not clear to what extent theycan be maintained during changing circumstances.
Zelealem Tefera. EWCP, P.O. Box 101426, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Email: [email protected]
11
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM
BER2004
One of the strengths of community-based institutions is their
resilience their capacity to cope with change. When the Qero
system was abolished, the community adapted to the condition
set by the new regime. They brought their case to the new local
administration, and a new Guassa Committee was formed
through the eight peasant associations. To some extent this
replaced the former Abba Qeras, with the aim of overseeing the
activities of the peasant associations for the protection of the
Guassa area. The main function of the Guassa Committee was toenforce agreed by-laws, particularly to control illegal uses of the
Guassa area during the closed season. The system was enforced
by local militia from the peasant associations. Illegal users were
prosecuted in the local courts, while repeated offenders were
taken to the woreda (district) court.
Despite the apparent adaptability and resilience of the system to
the new regime, it was less efficient than before and the area
started to show signs of overuse and degradation. Indeed, by the
mid-1990s, the system was collapsing under the strain.
However, the Guassa area was not brought under crop
cultivation despite the general craving for land. Its saving
feature was the altitude: the Guassa area is above the tree line,
which makes cultivation very difficult, and there is therefore nopermanent human settlement in the area. The area continues to
play an important role in the livelihoods of the Guassa
communities and it is therefore not surprising that they have a
vested interest in safeguarding the area.
TheEthiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP) had been
concerned with the conservation of the area because of the
important population of Ethiopian wolves that lives there. Thus,
in November 2003, the EWCP facilitated a discussion among
community leaders, elders and concerned individuals in all the
eight peasant associations about the future of the area. This
resulted in the formation of a new committee and new by-laws.
Today the Guassa area is managed by a committee comprisingof five elected elders from each of the eight peasant
associations. They form the Guassa committee, which oversees
the use of the area, guards it and prosecutes illegal users.
The first meeting of the Guassa committee, in view of the
decline of the area in recent years, resulted in the closure of the
area for three years starting from June 2003. It will be open
again for a few months (March - June) in 2006. The EWCP
continues to be involved by monitoring the effectiveness of the
community management and assisting in bringing together all
stakeholders for workshops and conferences.
On top of this, the people decided there was a need for a
management plan which would be recognized by the regionalgovernment. In effect, this would mean the classification of the
area as a community-based and managed protected area the
first of its kind in Ethiopia. Such a classification would secure
the traditional form of land-use and the livelihoods of the local
community. Recently, a draft management plan was reviewed by
all stakeholders. It is anticipated that the management plan will
be approved by the regional Environmental Protection and Land
Use Authority, thereby giving an ownership certificate of the
Guassa area to the communities.
Biodiversity benefitsBy regulating the exploitation of the area, the ancient system
has also protected the unique and diverse fauna and flora of thearea. The Guassa area harbours many of the endemic species
of fauna and flora associated with the Afroalpine ecosystem.
For example, there are 22 mammal species found in the area,
27% of which are endemic to Ethiopia.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
12/36
12
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004
Photo:S.R.Joshi/ICIMOD
A mountain village in Nepal.
Indigenous honeybees:allies for
mountain farmersFarooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung
In mountain agriculture, f ield crops, fruits, vegetables, livestock
and honeybees combine to provide self-sufficiency for farmers.
Together, they help provide the resilience necessary to live with
the hardships and extremes of mountain environments.
Indigenous honeybees play an important role in mountain
ecosystems. They are the natural pollinators for a wide variety of
mountain crops as well as indigenous plants. While visiting
flowers to collect nectar, the bees transfer pollen from one
flower to another. Three quarters of the worlds cultivated crops
are pollinated by different species of bees, and honeybees are
the most effective and reliable pollinators. They also play anoften unrecognized role in maintaining the vegetation cover:
more pollination means more seed, more young plants and
eventually more biomass, providing food and habitats for birds,
insects and other animals.
There are very few areas in the world where indigenous species
of honeybees other thanApis mellifera still exist, and even fewer
where the indigenous honeybees can be kept in hives and
managed by farmers.
In the Hindu Kush Himalayas, indigenous honeybees include
Apis dorsata, Apis florea, Apis laboriosa (bees whose products
can be collected but which cannot be kept in hives) andApiscerana. In addition to their importance for pollination, these
bees contribute directly to the livelihoods of mountain people by
providing honey and other bee products.Apis cerana, the Asian
hive bee, is particularly important to mountain farmers as a
source of cash income. This species is well suited both to the
climatic conditions in the region and to the farming practices
that are typical of these marginal, mountainous areas. It has the
ideal characteristics to ensure the pollination of mountain crops,
having adapted its foraging patterns to suit the changing
flowering and nectar production rhythms that result from the
uncertain and variable climatic conditions in mountain areas. It
can work under cool conditions up to an altitude of 3000 metres
and is ideally suited as a pollinator of early flowering crops like
almonds, peaches and plums. Kept in hives in the backyards,these bees pollinate kitchen garden crops, usually the main
source of vegetables. The indigenous bee offers a further
advantage in that it keeps going even under adverse conditions;
if the situation becomes really difficult the colonies may migrate
temporarily, but the bees come back to their hives when
conditions allow them to do so.
Decline in native pollinatorsDespite an increasing recognition of their important role in
pollination, the population and diversity of native bees is
declining in the region. Factors causing the decline include
habitat loss through land use changes, increasing monoculture
and negative impacts of pesticides and herbicides. In addition,the well-intended introduction of the European honey bee,
Apis mellifera, to the Himalayas has brought difficulties for
indigenous bee species, partly because of competition for nectar
in some areas, but more importantly through the introduction of
different types of contagious bee diseases and harmful mites.
AlthoughApis melliferapotentially produces more honey than
the indigenous honeybees, it is not as well adapted to the local
climatic conditions and the indigenous vegetation, making it aless effective pollinator. The introduction has therefore
adversely affected the livelihoods of mountain farmers. In spite
of these developments,Apis ceranabeekeepers with backyard
bees are still being confronted by development extensionists
trying to encourage introduction ofApis mellifera in the areas
of origin ofApis cerana.
In isolated mountain areas like Jumla and Humla in Nepal and in
many parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, subsistence
farmers are totally dependent on their own resources for their
survival. Due to environmental degradation as well as poor
pollination, the quantity and quality of many life-saving
mountain crops is declining signif icantly, making survival
increasingly difficult and forcing people to migrate to the plains.The situation is similar in many other areas of Nepal and
Afghanistan.
Decline in fruit and seed productionAgriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region is in a stage of
transition from traditional cereal crop farming to high-value
cash crops such as fruits and vegetables. This ongoing
transformation from subsistence to cash crop farming poses a
number of new challenges, including low production or crop
failures due to inadequate pollination. This emerging problem
has been documented in a series of f ield studies carried out by
ICIMOD across the region. Findings suggest that the decline in
pollinator intensity presents a serious threat to agriculturalproduction and maintenance of biodiversity. The negative impact
of declining pollinator intensity is visible in Himachal Pradesh
of India, Azad Jammu and Kashmir of Pakistan as well as in
mountain areas of Afghanistan and China.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
13/36
Despite increasing agronomic inputs, there is a clear decline in
the production and quality of fruit crops such as apples, pears
and almonds, and seed crops such as buckwheat. In fact, the
negative effects of these agronomic inputs on pollinators is one
of the major causes of pollination failure and hence the observed
declines in productivity. For example, apple cultivation in
Himachal Pradesh in India, though it initially gave significant
economic gains, has resulted in a loss of agriculturalbiodiversity and a decline in natural insect pollinators. In this
area, farmers are now compelled to rent colonies of honeybees
for pollinating their apple orchards. At present, it is mostly the
Department of Horticulture and a few private beekeepers that
rent out bee colonies to apple farmers. The current rate for
renting anApis cerana orApis mellifera colony for apple
pollination is US$20 per colony. Only a few farmers keep their
own colonies for pollination. A heavy demand for honeybees for
pollination has been created, and there are not enough bee
colonies to meet this demand. Hence, in the apple growing areas
of Himachal Pradesh, there is a tremendous scope for
entrepreneurial beekeeping for pollination.
In Maoxian County, Sichuan, China, farmers have resorted tohand pollination of their apples and pears, as there are not
enough natural insect pollinators to ensure a proper fruit setting.
Awareness about the use and function of honeybees is lacking,
and the beekeepers in this area hesitate to let their bees into this
fruit-producing valley because of the serious overuse of
pesticides in apple orchards. In Pakistan, disappointed farmers
are cutting down their apple trees and recently ICIMOD found
evidence of cutting down almond orchards in the Bamiyan
valley of Afghanistan due to low yields caused by insufficient
pollination.
A major reason for this development is the lack of awareness on
the importance of pollinators for crop production, as well as lackof knowledge about the habits and management of bees. The
promotion of beekeeping has focused only on honey production,
neglecting the more valuable role of bees in pollination. Farmers
13
are therefore usually unaware of the role of bees as well as of the
need for suitable polliniser varieties in the pollination process: In
order to pollinate fruit such as apples, for example, the bees first
need to take pollen from a compatible variety of apple and bring
this pollen to the tree being pollinated (see box).
New focus in beekeeping
ICIMOD is working to address the pollination issue inpartnership with local people and grassroots networks and more
than 25 institutions of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China,
India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan. ICIMOD is engaged from
policy to action level in promoting the importance of pollination
for mountain agriculture. The programme is focusing on the
conservation and sustainable management of wild bees,Apis
dorsata andApis laboriosa, and on promotion and sustainable
management of the Asian hive bee,Apis cerana, through
selection and breeding in collaboration with local communities.
This programme
intends to improve
livelihoods by
increasing pollinator
intensity withoutdisturbing local
biodiversity.
A selection and
multiplication
programme on
indigenousApis
cerana in India,
Nepal and Pakistan
is being implemented through action research. Farmers are
involved in recording selection data and identifying better
colonies for multiplication. Mass queen rearing from these
colonies helps in increasing pollinator intensity and honey yield.
Databases on the cliff sites and nesting habitats of wild
honeybees are also being developed to monitor the trends in
their population with the help of local communities. Honey
gathering communities have been sensitized to protect and
conserve the nesting habitats of the wild bees, which provide
them with additional income, thereby contributing to the
conservation of biodiversity.
In addition to playing a crucial role in pollination and thereby
improving crop yields, honeybees contribute in a balanced way
to rural development efforts leading to secure and sustainable
livelihoods.
Farooq Ahmad,Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi,and M.B.Gurung. ICIMOD,
P.O. Box 3226, Jawalakhel, Kathmandu, Nepal. Email: [email protected]
References
- Ahmad F; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2003. The Himalayan cliff beeApis
laboriosa and the honey hunters of Kaski. Indigenous honeybees of the Himalayas
(Volume I). ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 52p.
- Ahmad F. U. Partap; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2002. Please do not steal our
honey. Bees for Development Journal 64: 9.
- Gurung, M.B.; F. Ahmad; S.R. Joshi and C.R. Bhatta, 2003. The value ofApis
cerana beekeeping for mountain farmers in Nepal. Bees for Development Journal
69: 13.
- Partap, U., 2003. Improving agricultural productivity and livelihoods through
pollination:some issues and challenges. In: F. Waliyar, L. Collette and P.E.
Kenmore (eds). Beyond the Gene Horizon. pp.24-26. ICRISAT, India and FAO,
Rome.
- Partap U. and T. Partap, 2003. Warning signals from the apple valleys of theHindu Kush-Himalayas: productivity concerns and pollination problems.
ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 104 p.
LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEM
BER2004
The importance of polliniser trees
In Himachal Pradesh in India, farmers used to plant many varieties of
apples. However, due to the better market value farmers have been
planting only Royal Delicious and uprooting other varieties. Royal
Delicious is self-sterile and requires cross-pollination from other
compatible varieties for fruit setting. Some farmers do not have even a
single polliniser tree in their orchards. So, wherever the orchards haveRoyal Delicious only, there are serious pollination problems.
Some farmers are now including polliniser trees in their orchards.
These are grafted on to commercially premium varieties for fast results.
Farmers have even devised short-term solutions to bridge the gap until
the grafted branches or newly-planted polliniser trees begin flowering:
Bunches of small flowering branches of the pollinisers called bouquets
are put in plastic bags filled with water. These bouquets are hung in the
branches of commercially premium varieties. This type of pollination
method is locally referred to as bouquet pollination. The large-scale use
of plastic bags has increased the price of plastic bags in the local market
from US$0.75 per kg to US$2.10 per kg.
Adapted from the article Declining apple production and worried Himalayan
farmers: promotion of honeybees for pollination issues in mountain development
2001/1, by Uma Partap and Tei Partap.
Photo:U.Pratap/ICIMOD
Hand pollination by human bees in China.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
14/36
Diego Lynch
Talamanca is the region in the south of Costa Rica that stretches
from the Caribbean to the continental divide in the central
mountains, and borders on the southeast with Panama. It is the
countrys poorest region in socio-economic terms, but therichest in terms of biodiversity and tropical forest ecosystems.
It harbours almost three percent of the worlds known plant and
animal species, many of which are found only in this area.
Stretching from the highest point in the country to sea level,
Talamancas natural features include cloud forests, steep
mountainsides, rich alluvial plains, mid-altitude and lowland
rainforests, large expanses of wetlands, and offshore, a variety
of marine ecosystems including Costa Ricas only coral reef.
The Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves, covering over
500 000 ha and including the seven national parks in the area,
were declared a UNESCO World Heritage Biosphere Reserve in
1982.
Talamanca is home to more than half of Costa Ricas indigenous
population, including peoples of the Bribri and Cabecar tribes,
each with their own language and customs. The
Hispanic/Mestizo population is also unusually diverse, due to
historic and continuing immigration from various parts of Costa
Rica and Central America. Along the coast the dominant group
is English-speaking West Indians of African origin. Smaller
numbers of immigrants from elsewhere have also established
themselves there.
Traditionally, cacao was grown extensively in the region with
very few inputs and little effort. It formed a component of the
very diverse indigenous systems. In the late 19
th
century, bananagrowers invaded Talamanca and drove the indigenous people off
much of their land. Talamanca was one of the f irst parts of the
world where bananas were grown for international commerce.
Eventually, the banana companies abandoned Talamanca in the
14
late 1930s due to Panama disease, declining soil fertility and a
huge flood that destroyed most of their infrastructure. They tried
to maintain ownership and control over their land by planting
cacao plantations, managed by a small number of ex-banana
workers in exchange for the harvest. The indigenous people who
returned from their high mountain retreats to settle again plantedcacao along with subsistence crops in their traditional way.
Other settlers managed parts of the old plantations more
intensively.
In 1978, the area was devastated by the appearance of the fast-
spreading moniliapod rot (Monilia roreri). As a result, most
cacao plantations were cut down or abandoned and many were
transformed into cattle pastures and short-term cropping
systems.
To help local people address the economic and social crisis
brought on by the appearance of moniliapod rot, a local NGO,
Asociacin ANAI, and later two other organizations, the
Association of Small Producers of Talamanca (APPTA) and theTalamanca Caribbean Biological Corridor (CBTC) started an
initiative to encourage farmers to put into practice methods that
both conserved the environment and generated income. This
local initiative encouraged diversification based on perennial
crops and ecological principles. It also encouraged farmer
organization and ownership of a marketing cooperative,
introduced and helped develop the marketing of certified
organic products and developed ecotourism. The success of this
initiative has now been internationally recognized.
The Talamanca InitiativeKnown as the Talamanca Initiative, these three partner
organizations, each with its own programme and specificobjectives, share the common goal of improving the quality of
life in Talamanca through the preservation and environmentally
ethical use of its outstanding biodiversity and unique
ecosystems. A common core belief is that the key to
conservation and sustainable development is the successful
management of these issues by the local people. It is based on
five core principles:
1. No inherent contradiction exists between economic
development and environmental conservation. If
communities and nations are to thrive, development and
conservation must take place together.
2. The best stewards of the tropical lowlands are the campesinos
(small-scale farmers) and Indian farmers who have dedicatedtheir lives to these lands.
3. All natural tropical areas that are not protected will be
radically altered during our lifetime. We must work to protect
these areas and preserve their biodiversity for future
generations to enjoy.
4. The natural forest and other unique primary ecosystems are
Talamancas most economically valuable asset in the long
term.
5. A successful strategy to address these issues must
successfully integrate environmental, social, economic and
organizational needs.
Finding suitable farming methodsThe first step was to f ind an alternative to cacao as a source ofincome. Talamancan farmers knew that diversification was the
answer to sustaining their livelihoods, as it would protect their
crops from disease and provide year-round food and income.LEISAMAGAZINE.DECEMBER2004
The Talamanca Initiative
Photo:APPTA
The Talamanca region stretches from the highest point in Costa Rica
down to the Carribean Sea.
-
7/25/2019 LEISA 20 4 Farming With Nature
15/36
Between 1985 and 1990, more than two million seedlings of
cash crops, food crops and trees for timber were planted on the
regions family farms, creating a larger and much more diverseresource base. The variety of plants and trees mimicked the
variety in natural forests and so helped to support biological
diversity a key to thriving human and natural communities.
Commercializing crop diversificationTo make crop diversification economically viable APPTA
developed a local processing infrastructure and marketing
strategies. ANAI identified the potential for growing and
marketing organically grown crops, and used this information to
find and develop markets, locally and worldwide. Receiving fair
trade and organic certification from internationally recognized
organizations was an instrumental step that made it possible to
pursue these new markets. Together, ANAI and APPTAestablished one of the first organic certif ication programmes for
small farmers in Costa Rica, certifying the first 500 farms, and
subsequently helping to facilitate the creation of ANAO, the
national organic agriculture association. This has now developed
into a national certif ication agency, Eco-Logica, a key element
in Costa Ricas growing organic agriculture movement. The
price premium farmers are receiving for their certified organic
products ranges from 15 to 50 percent.
Today, over 1500 Talamancan farmers have established organic
agro-ecosystems, combining commercial crops with food
security strategies in a multi-story planting system that mimics
the structure and function of the rainforest.
Talamanca has become the largest volume producer and exporter
of organic products in Central America, generating an annual
income of US$500 000, which is channelled into the local
economy through a large number of family farmers. Current
sales of organic banana generate more than US$12 000 per
week. Demand for organic cacao has outgrown supply, so the
programme is being expanded to neighbouring countries to meet
demand. Smaller volumes of many of the other perennial crops
introduced during the nursery project are now being marketed
by APPTA to Costa Ricas biggest chain of food stores, thereby
distributing the farmers income more evenly over the year. This
distribution of income is perhaps even more important than the
amounts involved, since it improves social stability and allowsfarmers to stay on their farm with their family all year, instead of
having to migrate seasonally in search of paid work.
>>
The problem was, how? The region is characterized by a humid
tropical climate with frequent torrential rainfall, steep slopes and
limited infrastructure.
ANAIs vision was to minimize destructive agricultural practices
by establishing diversified agroforestry systems. These agro-ecosystems would mimic the natural forest and complement the
conservation of biodiversity in the natural forest areas that exist
in patches throughout the region and as a large block in the
national park area. Because tropical rainforests maintain almost
all their nutrients in the trees and other plants, when a forest is
cleared almost all the nutrients are lost and the original forests
cannot be regenerated. This combination of agroforestry and
natural forest would not only preserve the biodiversity of the
region, it would protect the watersheds and provide
opportunities for tourism and local recreation. It would also
allow the sustainable harvesting of wood and other products,
such as medicinal plants.
ANAI began by planting organic crops on their experimentalfarm in 1980, eventually planting more than 150 species of fruit,
nut and spice crops that had been identif ied from the worlds
lowland rainforest areas as having the potential for integration
into Talamancas small farm systems. This included local
varieties of bananas and many types of less known fruit trees,
such as araza,sapoti and jackfruit. Using the information
gathered during the crop trials, ANAI helped local farmers
establish tree nurseries in every community of Talamanca, an
innovative approach that allowed the distribution of the new
crops and new varieties of cacao to communities far from the
nearest road.
These community nurseries were developed not only as a meansof producing seedlings locally, but also as community training
centres and focal points for community organization.
Galvanizing community movementANAI learned early in the process that most people and
communities had little experience of coming together in groups
to make decisions and solve problems. The nurseries became
meeting places where people could learn about crops and come
together to organize community work. Large numbers of people
became engaged because participation resulted in both tangible
and intangible benefits for them and their families.
ANAIs leadership helped catalyse the formation of multiple
grassroots organizations. Over four years (1985-1989), ANAImet weekly with farmers from each community,