What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor...

35
What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services Ehsan Dulloo and Adam Drucker, Bioversity International Enhanced Genepool Utilization Conference, Cambridge,

description

Ehsan Dulloo, Bioversity International Conservation and Availability Programme Leader, presented at the international conference Enhanced genepool utilization - Capturing wild relative and landrace diversity for crop improvement, in Cambridge, UK, 16-20 June 2014. It is said that “you can't manage what you don't measure”. The unprecedented global loss of agricultural species, varieties and associated traditional knowledge is of increasing concern, threatening the provisioning, regulatory, supporting and cultural ecosystem services of importance to the livelihoods of the poor as well as the welfare of broader society. Such services include such public goods as maintaining agroecosystem resilience and future option values. Unfortunately, although many crop genetic resources (CGR) are widely recognized as being threatened, there is only limited information available regarding actual status. Only isolated efforts at monitoring have been undertaken. Conventional monitoring efforts, where they exist at all, have been subject to limitations due to ad hoc approaches that lack rigorous survey and sampling approaches, do not adequately account for search effort costs or systematically involve the participation of local-level actors, and are usually based on collections instead of direct observations in the field. Furthermore, the links between specific CGR conservation levels/configurations and the provision of specific ecosystem services are poorly understood. There is thus an urgent need for the development of a systematic approach to the monitoring of CGR. This presentation draws on the outcome of a recent Bioversity International/CIP international expert workshop aimed at the development of such an approach. The proposed multi-scale approach builds on a wide range of existing monitoring experiences and a review of the literature related to agricultural biodiversity-relevant ecosystem services. A number of proposed indicators that could be used to assess CGR threat levels, be used for monitoring purposes and/or assist in evaluating ecosystem service public/private good trade-offs arising from agricultural intensification are presented, with a view to supporting the potential for prioritizing, designing and implementing on-farm/in situ conservation measures that actively involve farmers, support livelihoods, complement existing ex situ conservation efforts and facilitate access and benefit sharing. Find out more about Bioversity International work on conserving crop diversity on the farm and in the wild http://www.bioversityinternational.org/research-portfolio/conservation-of-crop-diversity/

Transcript of What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor...

Page 1: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Ehsan Dulloo and Adam Drucker, Bioversity InternationalEnhanced Genepool Utilization Conference, Cambridge, UK, 16-20 June 2014.

Page 2: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

2

CGRFA-13 Request

“to elaborate on the means and opportunities for establishing a global network for in situ conservation

and on-farm management of PGRFA, avoiding duplication of efforts.”

CGRFA-13/11/ report, paragraph 41

Page 3: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

3

• Survey – among stakeholder to get a feel about what stakeholder thought were the need for a global network

• Technical Consultation “Towards the establishment of a global network for in situ conservation and on-farm management of PGRFA” - 13 Nov. 2012

• Consultation workshop – options for global network – 6th March 2014.

What has been done?

Page 4: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

4

Survey methodology: partners

• FAO and CDI/WUR designed a global survey – to identify interventions and practices that

contribute to the maintenance and use of local crops and varieties, and

– to explore the degree of connectivity between ‘OFM practitioners’ and ‘NPGRP managers and policy-makers’.

• 1168 Respondents: 818 OFM practitioner and 350 PGRFA managers and policy-makers

Source: Nilsen et al. (2014) Relationship between national plant genetic resources programmes and practitioners promoting on farm management results form a global survey. PGRFA Characterisation and Utilization 12(1) : 143-146.

Page 5: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

5

What type of interventions: main areas?

Community based conservation and use

Crop improvement and plant breeding

Characterization and assessment of diversity

Organization, training and capacity development

Sustainable agricultural and land management practices

Ex situ conservation and gene bank management

Seed production and distribution

Marketing, processing and promotion of diversity products

Surveying and documentation of plant species and diversity

Advocacy, law and policy development

Protection and promotion of farmers’ rights

Food, seed and cash relief

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Page 6: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

6

Global network supporting OFM?

OFM practitioners PGRFA managers and policy-makers

95%

86%

5%

14%

YesNo

Page 7: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

7

Support: what type?

Direct technical assistance and expertise

Training and capacity development

Information and awareness

Supply of agricultural inputs and equipments

Organizational and logistical support

Policy and legal support

Financial support

0% 20% 40% 60%

PGRFA managers and policy makers supporting practicioners and their organizationsOFM practitioners supporting farmers and their organizations

Page 8: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

8

FAO Technical Workshop on in situ conservation and on-farm management 13 Nov. 2012

• Attended by experts, country NFPs, as well as several international organizations such as CBD, ITPGRFA, Bioversity International and others.

• Purpose is to identify options, ways and means for

establishing a global network.

Page 9: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

9

Benefits of a Global Network• Technical workshop recognized a number of key benefits that a

global network would bring for supporting in situ conservation of CWR and On-farm management:– Provide Information, Knowledge-sharing and tools for capacity

development especially at national an regional levels;– Enhance technology transfer;– Would facilitate linkages between and among decision makers;– Catalyze development of national strategies on CWR;– Help build partnerships and collaborations;– Provide funding opportunities;– Provide policy, legal and institutional support .

• Point of view that a global network is not a priority and that focus should be on national implementation

Page 10: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

10

Type of Global Network

• There was a clear consensus that in situ conservation and on-farm management are two different processes that requires different approaches; but complementary to each other

• They operate under different environments with different nature of problems and involve different actors/ stakeholders; – on-farm management– process involves farmers and

their organisations at all levels– CWR in situ - involve ministries of agriculture and

environment, as well as genebanks and users of germplasm and local communities

Page 11: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

11

RECOMMENDATION• Recommends that every means and opportunities should

be further explored to bring together key stakeholders in order to avoid duplication through creation of a Community of Practice for each– CWR: a consortium of key players from both agriculture

and environment sectors would be important; e.g. FAO, CBD, UNEP, ITPGRFA,UNESCO, IUCN, CGIAR, NGOs etc.

– On-farm management: Process that is inclusive enough to ensure representation of local level development and conservation farmers organizations and local NGOs – strengthen collaboration between practitioners of on-farm management and policy makers

Page 12: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

12

FAO Expert Consultation workshop -6 March 2014

• Review a draft document ‘Global network options for in situ conservation and on-farm management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’– Need for a global network– Functions of network– Possible structure and governance– Process for establishment of global network

Page 13: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Evidence for genetic erosion

Page 14: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Global concern about the loss of genetic diversity(both ex situ collections and in situ populations)

• International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

“Alarmed by the continuing erosion of these resources” [i.e. PGRFA]

• Global Plan of Action on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

“Genetic erosion is reported to continue many regions of the world and the genetic vulnerability of crops has further increased”.

• Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.

No clear (rather conflicting) evidence of actual loss of diversity is occurring overall (van de Wouw et al. 2009)

Page 15: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Changes in cultivation of maize hybrids and landraces over time in southwest China

(Jingson Li, 2012)

Page 16: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Diversity (morphological)

Main correlates:1. Closeness to Pucallpa

city2. Location in hilly area

Correlates with erosion (from farmer surveys):

1. Cattle present (yes)2. Source of planting material

(market)3. Closeness to the road4. Location in plains

Genetic Erosion of Cassava in the Peruvian Amazon

Willemen et al. 2007

Page 17: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

17

Genetic erosion in coconut• Bioversity / COGENT in India, Sri Lanka, Philippines and

Kiribati• Rapid survey undertaken using 36 indicators of genetic

erosion• 90% of farmers agreed that genetic erosion existed• Based on weighted scores the rate of genetic erosion was

25-49% (in a period of 10 years)

• Farmers were able to rank causes of genetic erosion:– Replacement with other crops– Lack of interest by community– Urbanization– Biotic and abiotic factors (soil erosion, typhoons, cyclones,

drought)

Page 18: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Genetic erosion in Coffee ex situ collections

(a) CATIE, Costa Rica

0100200300400500600700800

Before

1950

1951

-196

0

1961

-197

0

1971

- 198

0

1981

-199

0

1991

-200

0

2000

-200

5

Num

ber o

f acc

essi

ons

Accessions lost

New accessions

(b) Kianjavato, Madagascar

0

50

100

150

200

250

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-2000

2000-2005

Num

ber o

f acc

essi

ons

Accessions lost

New accessions

(c)JARC, Ethiopia

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Before1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-2000

2000-2005

Num

ber o

f acc

essi

ons

Accessions lost

New accessions(d) CRI, Kenya

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Before1960

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-2000

2000-2005

Num

ber o

f acc

essi

ons

Accessions lost

New accessions

Dulloo et al. 2008

Page 19: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

No change in diversity – case of pearl millet and sorghum in Niger

Many local varieties of millets and sorghum in Niger were replaced by improved ones, but overall diversity of pearl millet and sorghum varieties has not changed between 1976 and 2003 in the terms of varietal names and DNA markers (Bezançon et al. 2009)

2003

1976 50-55 days 55-60 days 60-65 days 65-70 days

70-75 days

75-80 days

80+ days

Page 20: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

• It is clear that genetic erosion is of concern but evidence is still lacking about:– rate of loss– variation among

crops, situations– economic implications

• Monitoring changes in genetic diversity and analyzing causes of change is still needed

Page 21: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

21

Need for Better Monitoring

• There is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering regular, timely data on agricultural biodiversity change

• Different organizations and projects adopt diverse measurements, with some important biodiversity dimensions, such as genetic diversity, often missing

• Conventional monitoring efforts, where they exist at all:– subject to ad hoc approaches that lack rigorous survey and sampling

approaches– involve poor understanding of search effort costs– do not systematically involve the participation of local-level actors– usually based on collections instead of direct observations in the field.

Page 22: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

22

• Many studies have been undertaken to develop indicators for biodiversity, but only partly specifically dealing with agricultural biodiversity (Buiteveld et al., 2009).

• However, the indicators for the specific public good ecosystem services associated with ABD not yet well developed. These relate to such services as:– landscape level agroecosystem resilience (environmental,

economic and social dimensions)– maintenance of traditional knowledge/cultural practices– maintenance of future option values and evolutionary

services

Indicator Development Status

Page 23: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

23

• Literature review undertaken (citing 70 papers) seeking to identify the main groups of indicators that can cover the public good benefits generated by ABD (Nguyen and Drucker, 2013)

• Set of 12 priority indicators identified, related to aforementioned ABD-relevant ecosystem services:– Diversity and spatial distribution– Area– Farmer numbers– Seed system– Knowledge– Ex situ measures

Indicator set for ABD-relevant Ecosystem Services

Illustration source: CIP- UPWARDS, 2003

Page 24: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Current measurements and indicators (crops)• Primarily focus on ex situ genebanks

– Do not measure state or trends of diversity at the genetic level in real world agroecosystems

• FAO indicators – monitoring progress of the implementation of second Global Plan of Action. 66 indicators covering 4 main areas viz. – In situ conservation and management (12

indicators)– Ex situ conservation (12 indicators)– Sustainable use (22 indicators)– Building institutional and human capacities (20

indicators)

Page 25: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

25Copyright © 2012 Bioversity International

Global indicators: Significant traditional variety diversity continues to be managed by small scale farmers in the developing world.

Jarvis et al., 2009 PNAS

Hungary, Mexico, Peru

• -LN(1-Farm evenness)•0.0 •0.5 •1.0 •1.5 •2.0

•LN Farm

richness

•0.0

•0.5

•1.0

•1.5

•2.0

A

B

2-3

2-3

39-89

4-20

5-14

1-2

4-5

9-74

Morocco, Ethiopia

1-24-12

1-2

5-274-5

15-28

Burkina faso

Nepal and Vietnam

Peru

Community Richness

House Hold richness

Richness = 9Evenness A > B

2-3

9-18

Uzbekistan3-5

6-19

Leading the collaboration of >60 institutes world wide

Page 26: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

• HT Integrated Indicator- Bonneuil et al. (2012)– Varietal richness, Spatial evenness; Effect of between-variety genetic

diversity; Within- variety genetic diversity

• Tested against a historical dataset on bread wheat varieties dating back to 1878: Allelic diversity; Acreage share of each variety; Contribution of within variety diversity to total genetic diversity

• More varieties (the varietal richness factor) can mean less diversity when

(i) their genetic structure is more similar (the effect of between-variety genetic diversity), or (ii) when more diverse landraces are replaced by many homogeneous lines (the effect of within-variety genetic diversity) or (iii) when one or a few varieties become hegemonic in the landscape (the spatial evenness effect)

A New Integrated indicator

Page 27: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

27

CBD - Global Target by 2010

“To achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth.”

Page 28: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services
Page 29: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

• No. of species• No. of accessions within collections• Geographical origin of accessions

BIP: Ex situ collection indicator

Principle: Accessions entering the collection can be characterized for their originality

Index: An integrative function reflecting the collection’s enrichmentAny new accessions entering the collection at a given time is compared to the accessions already present: • Is it a new species?• Does it come from a new area?The more original it is, the more weight it is given. The weight is based on a log function so that it decreases when a species is well represented.

Enrichment Index of ex situ crop collections as an indicator on the status and trend of crop genetic diversity

Page 30: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

• Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.

UN- Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020

Page 31: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services
Page 32: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

International Expert MeetingHuacanyo, Peru

Page 33: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Approach

Monitoring required at different levels:• Genetic • Species/variety• Landscape• Traditional knowledge and cultural practices

Page 34: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Summary• Efforts for developing a global network for in situ

conservation and on farm management are underway• Global concerns of genetic erosion- conflicting evidences• Much has been done in the past to document genetic

diversity across a whole range of scale –ex situ, in situ, on farm, production landscape, forest gene conservation units

• Genetic diversity is important for building resilience for crops and landscape level- sustaining evolutionary processes

• More precise indicators are required monitor agricultural biodiversity

• FAO Global Plan of Action• Strategic Plan for Biodiversity2011-2020 - Aichi target 13;

Page 35: What do we have to lose? Generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor farmer livelihoods and public good ecosystem services

Thank you

www.bioversityinternational.org