Conservation and Use of Plant and Animal Biodiversity in …hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/gtz_challenges.pdf · 2014-05-28 · Whereas ex situ conservation in gene banks is a useful tool for

Conservation and Use of Plant andAnimal Biodiversity

in Agriculture

Bottlenecks and Challenges

PART 1

Ursula Gröhn – WitternSusanne Gura

Alice MüllerDecember 2001

Address and Contacts of the Project:

Managing Agrobiodiversity in Rural Areas

Beate Weiskopf (plant genetic resourcesAnnette von Lossau (animal genetic resources)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHPostfach 5180Dag-Hammarskjöldweg-Weg 1-565726 Eschborn / Germany

Tel.: 00 49 6196 79 1432 und 1418Fax : 00 49 6196 79 7137 und 6013E-Mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

i

Content:

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

2 Assessment of important elements in the work of organisations......................................................2General approaches ...................................................................................................................................................2Differences between animal and plant genetic resources and their management ........................................2

2.1 Policy Dimension..............................................................................................................................3Access and benefit sharing........................................................................................................................................3Advocacy .......................................................................................................................................................................3Land use planning.......................................................................................................................................................4Legal implications.......................................................................................................................................................4

2.2 Practical Dimension .........................................................................................................................5Community based activities ......................................................................................................................................5Diversity at species and variety/breeds level ........................................................................................................6Neglected species or traditional crops ...................................................................................................................6Market development ...................................................................................................................................................7Incentive measures......................................................................................................................................................7Participatory breeding (PB) .....................................................................................................................................8Role of farmers ............................................................................................................................................................9Seed fairs and community seed banks.....................................................................................................................9Publications and public awareness.......................................................................................................................10Workshops and seminars.........................................................................................................................................10Training and capacity development ......................................................................................................................11Networking..................................................................................................................................................................11Regional approach....................................................................................................................................................11

3 Bottlenecks and Challenges are Opportunities ..............................................................................13

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................13Policy framework ......................................................................................................................................................14The environment and agrobiodiversity.................................................................................................................14Safety of conservation ..............................................................................................................................................15Training.......................................................................................................................................................................15The role of development cooperation ...................................................................................................................16Farmers´ decision making processes....................................................................................................................16Benefit sharing...........................................................................................................................................................17Cultural change and new markets .........................................................................................................................17Breeding with farmers..............................................................................................................................................18Gene banks and farmers ..........................................................................................................................................18What to conserve .......................................................................................................................................................19Crisis management and relief.................................................................................................................................19Biotechnology, documentation, IPR and legislation .........................................................................................20Networking..................................................................................................................................................................21Publication..................................................................................................................................................................21Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................22

Conservation and Use of Plant and Animal Biodiversity in Agriculture - Bottlenecks and Challenges

1

1 Introduction

The importance of biological diversity for the long-term survival of eco-systems hasincreasingly been recognised during the last two decades, and after the signing of theConvention for Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 it also has become an objective ofdevelopment co-operation. However, the implementation of the provisions of the Conventionfor Biological Diversity is still weak in many countries, not only in the South.

Agricultural biodiversity is even more neglected. The fact that genetic diversity of domesticanimals and in cultivated plants and their wild relatives is endangered, does not receiveadequate attention. FAO’s Global Plan of Action (GPA) for the conservation and use of plantgenetic resources provides the necessary steps; its implementation, however, lags far behindschedule. Among the major reasons is the paradigm of modern agriculture: to increase yieldsunder controlled environmental conditions, not allowing for or acknowledging negative oruncontrolled impacts and therefore preventing possible steps to contain damage.

It is therefore very important to bring the case of agricultural diversity forward in such a waythat its benefits are evident and urgent steps are taken to ensure that future generations arenot deprived of alternatives, which today cannot be foreseen as useful.

Last not least governments have signed the CBD and supported the GPA and are underpressure to fulfil their commitments.The GTZ Sectoral Project “Managing Agricultural Diversity in Rural Areas” aims at helping toimplement both GPA and CBD and at assisting partners to identify their own approaches andactivities. It is meant to make a contribution to sustainable use of agrobiodiversity for foodsecurity and rural development and to help reduce agrobiodiversity losses by providinginformation, co-ordination and assistance to interested projects, organisations andgovernments.

The present study aims at identifying main actors in the fields of maintaining animal and plantgenetic resources, at describing their approaches and at identifying gaps and bottlenecks,which could become priority challenges of the GTZ Sectoral Project.

The main sources of information were the web pages of relevant organisations. In caseadditional information was needed, a questionnaire was mailed, accompanied by a letter ofintroduction and information on the GTZ Sectoral Project. Some 40 organisations were askedto fill the questionnaire; almost all of them provided the requested information.

In a second step the study assessed the different approaches of the organisations using alist of topics and issues regarded as important elements for the GTZ Sectoral Project.

In a third step the approaches were put in relation to bottlenecks and challenges, andpotential activities of the GTZ Sectoral Project were developed that can fulfil these needs.

The study consists in two parts: Part One assesses important elements in the approaches ofselected organisations, and identifies bottlenecks and challenges. The potential for the GTZSectoral Project is discussed, Part Two lists German and international organisations, bothgovernmental and non-governmental, and it describes their main approaches and activities.

Many people made this study possible by providing the necessary information,encouragement, or other support. Since listing them all would take up considerable space,the authors thank them collectively.


2

2 Assessment of important elements in the work of organisations

General approaches

The organisations do not share a common definition of agrobiodiversity, and the approachesalso differ between organisations. Some organisations concentrate on promoting plant oranimal genetic resources, (e.g. FAO, various gene banks, GEH), whereas others view it andpromote it in a wider agricultural systems or livelihood perspective (e.g. IIED, NRI).

Also the delimitations of agrobiodiversity differ:FAO defines: “PGRFA consist of the diversity of genetic material contained in traditionalvarieties and modern cultivars grown by farmers as well as crop wild relatives and other wildplant species that can be used for food, feed for domestic animals, fibre, clothing, shelter,wood, timber, energy etc.” (Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources).Some organisations, like the gene banks, GEH or FAO concentrate on agricultural plants oranimals only whereas others include wildlife or wild fauna. Given the diversity of issues, thisdiversity of approaches may be justified.

There is hardly one ideal way of managing genetic resources, but it is certainly appropriate torelate to ecological conditions, production systems and economic circumstances. Thegenetic resources strategies will differ in semi-arid or arid regions, where vegetationdynamics are largely event driven (mainly rainfall events), from areas with less variablerainfall and a more ”equilibrium” environment. It is clear, that in countries where 70 or 80 %of the population depend largely or entirely on agriculture and where smallholdingspredominate (and where people are generally poor), the possibilities and limitations ofconserving genetic resources will differ from a country where 5 % or fewer of the peopledepend on agriculture and large farms. In the latter conservation strategy, the culturaldimensions will be more important whereas in the former agrobiodiversity is a very importantprerequisite for production.

Differences between animal and plant genetic resources and their management

There are some intrinsic differences between plant and animal genetic resources and theway they can be managed. These differences are rarely spelled out in a systematic manner.Some of the differences include:

• Animals reproduce sexually, whereas many plants can be reproduced vegetatively.This means that breeds of animals can be genetically more diverse than varieties orcultivars of plants. Within animal breeds separate lines have to be differentiated.

• The storage and transport of seeds is an age old practice with simple meanswhereas the storage of semen or embryos is technically demanding (needs liquidnitrogen) and is a practice which is much more recent and not wide spread.

• The rate of reproduction - with the exception e.g. of fish and insects - in animals ismuch lower than in plants. Also, the generation interval is longer in most animalspecies than in plants (trees excepted). This means that radical changes in geneticcomposition of an animal population take longer than in plants.

• The effects of crossbreeding on animal populations e.g. in India or China should notbe belittled. However, in general, farm animal genetic diversity is much morethreatened in industrialised than in developing countries. Plant genetic resources arerather equally threatened in both industrialised and developing countries. Thereforecertain activities necessary to maintain plant genetic resources may not have anequivalent in managing animal genetic resources.


3

• Ownership of animals generally includes ownership of its genetics. There are farfewer biopiracy cases in animals than in plants.

• With the exceptions of trees, animals are generally larger units than plants. A farmerkeeps fewer animals than he or she grows plants, and therefore the possibilities forbreeding by one farmer are more limited in animals than in plants.

These differences between animals and plants mean that actions to support maintenance offarm animal and farm plant biodiversity will differ. Whereas ex situ conservation in genebanks is a useful tool for plants, it is not for animals. For animals, the current priorities are indocumenting the present state of farm animal biodiversity and less in managing ex situconservation, and improving the legal framework regarding access and ownership.

2.1 Policy Dimension

Access and benefit sharing

The discussion on access and benefit sharing is a major battleground between the providersand the users of plant genetic resources. The CBD demands that the Convention Partiesestablish a functioning benefit sharing mechanism but does not make any provisions as tohow this should be achieved.

The analysis of the current situation clearly shows that organisations involved in thediscussion mainly work at a theoretical or policy level but activities and programmes thattackle this question at a practical level are rare. For the agricultural sector no working modelsof benefit sharing could be identified.

Generally, advocacy NGOs support the idea that genetic resources should remain in thepublic domain and see the development of a more stringent ownership system like patentingvery critically. RAFI, GRAIN, WGTRR and IPGRI are actively involved in this important policyissue. In Germany, the NGO Forum Environment and Development brings togetherinterested German NGOs, develops and advocates positions and carries out publicawareness activities.

Access and benefit sharing is not yet a major issue in the discussion of farm animal geneticdiversity.

Advocacy

Community based activities, in situ conservation and natural resource management needpolicy support in order to create adequate legal and institutional frameworks, and provide thenecessary funding resources. Various organisations are active either internationally or at thenational level, or both. Their expertise and advice is used by many governmental andinternational organisations as well as in most negotiation settings like the CBD, theInternational Undertaking, and the WTO.

Internationally, the most important and active NGOs are RAFI, GRAIN, ITDG, and EvB. FAO,especially its Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), is acrucial international actor, as well as the Conference of Parties (COP) of the CBD and itsWorking Group on Access and Benefit Sharing. Due to its effective legal implementationprovisions, however, the WTO is the strongest international body. Its Trade RelatedIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, seeks to establish legal frameworks in all


4

member states, which allow the agricultural biotechnology industry to collect royalties ongenetic materials brought under its property.

The scientific community is involved in advocacy work at international level especiallythrough the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The CGIARholds in trust for FAO the world’s largest ex situ collections of crop genetic resources. AGenetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC) advises it. The International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI), one of the sixteen research centers of the CGIAR, manages thiscommittee.

The national partners of CBDC and REMERFI, BIOTHAI (Thailand), Gene Campaign,Diverse Women for Diversity, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (all three in India), Li-BIRD (Nepal), MASIPAG (The Philippines), and GEH, SAVE and IGR in Germany areimportant and experienced lobbyists. Africa has a very limited number of agrobiodiversityadvocacy organisations; Eastern Europe has just started to develop this experience. Adriving force is certainly the TRIPS agreement requiring legal frameworks in all WTOmember states.

Animal genetic resources have a much smaller community of advocates. FAO (GlobalStrategy and the List of endangered breeds), SAVE and Rare Breeds International andnational organisations such as GEH in Germany are important lobbyists.

The combination of practical fieldwork and advocacy at national or even international level israre and a result of limited human and financial resources and the complexity of the issue asa whole. However, a number of organisations do work at both ends, like CBDC, Biothai,MASIPAG, Gene Campaign, Diverse Women for Diversity, M.S. Swaminathan ResearchFoundation.

Land use planning

Land use planners often are aware of their influence on wildlife diversity but probably lessaware of their influence on diversity of crops and breeds. Whether small farms or largecommercial enterprises are given priority, whether organic farming or conventionalagriculture are practiced or whether forestry and wildlife are incorporated in land useplanning, such decisions influence the range of genetic diversity of an agricultural system.FAO, UNEP and major organisations in technical cooperation are active in land use planning.They increasingly include agrobiodiversity as an element in their activities; however, detailsare not readily available.

Legal implications

National seed legislation is often considered as a constraint to the free exchange of seedsand the use of landraces and farmers´ varieties. With the help of the TRIPS agreement andthe UPOV regulations, many WTO members are pushed into an IPR regime that allowspatenting of plant varieties and animals.NGOs especially in Asia and The Americas very much oppose this concept of ownership.CBDC, GRAIN, RAFI, SEARICE, WGTRR, MASIPAG and the German NGO ForumEnvironment and Development try to influence their governments to implement a farmerfriendly, legal regime that allows public or community ownership.FAO, IPGRI, and others study policy issues on the topic and conduct workshops, seminarsand studies at regional and international levels.International organisations sometimes voice a critical view of IPRs especially in respect tothe implications for the South and its food security. But this does not find its expression in aclear stand against WTO regulations, biopiracy or national policies.


5

Legal decisions are influenced by very active and potent lobby organisations that support theinterests of plant breeding companies and multinational life sciences corporations that favourpatenting.

With respect to farm animal resources, breeding laws often put indigenous breeds at adisadvantage. Licensing of sires and herd books are intended to make sure that breeds arefurther developed according to breeding objectives. Particularly where artificial inseminationis favoured this can lead to a reduction of genetic diversity within a breed, and sires forartificial insemination are normally so-called exotic breeds. TRIPs and IPR are, however, atpresent not a major concern in maintaining farm animal genetic diversity.

2.2 Practical Dimension

Community based activities

In the scope of the GTZ Sectoral Project, community based activities are of special relevancebecause management of genetic resources in rural areas can only be achieved by involvinglocal people and their communities.

Some organisations have gained considerable experiences in community basedagrobiodiversity activities especially in South East Asia, Central and South America, andSouthern Africa.

In India, Bangladesh and some other countries community based activities are carried out ina wider political context. The question of who owns the seed is approached as a question ofnational sovereignty, independence and an important part of cultural self-determination.Agrobiodiversity is very much linked to cultural diversity and the (re)discovery of a people’scultural heritage and beliefs. This dimension has generally been neglected in agriculturaldevelopment projects. Equally, larger international organisations are hesitant to connectcultural and spiritual dimensions to diversity issues.

Very often community-based activities in the seed sector can be seen as an answer to theunsatisfactory solutions modern agricultural research offered to resource poor farmers.

Together with the objective of cultural identity, food security is probably the most importantone for farmers and communities involved. A greater diversity of crops and varieties is part oftheir risk avoiding strategy.

CBDC partner organisations, Li-BIRD in Nepal, SEARICE, Green Foundation and M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundations in India are experienced organisations in community-based activities. Especially their experiences concerning the active participation ofcommunities in seed multiplication, management of community seed banks, participatorybreeding and seed exchange mechanisms could be useful elsewhere.

Farm animal genetic diversity currently is far better supported by development projects andNGOs than by others. Actors in this field include projects supported by DFID with respect tothe wider livelihood systems and for poverty alleviation (e.g. Wye College), German projectssuch as BASED in South Africa, and local initiatives such as the African Fowl initiative, againin South Africa (which tries to establish a special brand for marketing indigenous birds).Breeding societies have some potential for local initiatives, but often considerable conceptualdifficulties, as conventional animal breeding tends to emphasise the development of superbanimals rather than maintaining genetic diversity within a breeding population.


6

Diversity at species and variety/breeds level

Most organisations that work at community level seem to start with promoting crop diversityand later move to the variety level.

A very successful means of promoting varietal diversity are seed fairs and exhibitions wherefarmers can exhibit and exchange different varieties and sometimes compete for the greatestnumber. The preparation of the corresponding dishes and exchange of recipes oftenaccompanies seed fairs. The mapping of diversity at village level can motivate young peopleto participate and involve large parts of the community.

ITDG, Li-BIRD, some CBDC members, Green Foundation, and M.S. Swaminathan ResearchFoundation have carried out seed fairs. CGIAR Centres, FAO, and EU work at species andvariety level.

Any rural development projects working with animal husbandry and smallholders are facedwith a diversity of species as different species have different functions. However support forindigenous breeds is scarce, and seldom different breeds of one species are promoted(although different breeds of one species may be kept - e.g. a dairy breed and a morebeef/draft oriented breed in cattle).

At ILRI, a particular trait of adaptation - the tolerance of some cattle breeds to trypanomiasis- is investigated by the International Trypanomiasis Centre (ITC) in The Gambia, and theresults are promoted with some success. A weak point, however, is that the ITCconcentrates on only one breed, whereas a number of trypano-tolerant breeds are known.

The documentation and management of rare and endangered breeds is the task of the FAOGlobal Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources and of the DomesticAnimal Documentation Information System (DAD – IS). There is a network of nationalcontact persons who collect data in their respective countries. The main weakness is thatthere is no universally accepted definition of rare and endangered breeds. In some cases thelivestock kept by smallholders is neglected but small groups of animals bred on researchstations are considered as endangered breeds. This is not justified.

Neglected species or traditional crops

Neglected or under-utilised species or animal breeds are on the agenda of a number ofinternational organisations IIED, FAO and some CGIAR Centres). During the GreenRevolution decades, the focus was on a few crops like wheat, rice, maize, and beans; aselection based on global production statistics. These statistics were later revised, and otherglobally important crops like cassava were added. Monocropping also contributed to the lossof species diversity in farmers’ fields. Scientific knowledge on many of the food or otheruseful plants was not developed, except in a few national research organisations or NGOs,and at FAO, where a substantial programme was run during the Eighties. Mainly during thenineties, their potential has been rediscovered. IPGRI and others have special programmesfor neglected crops.

Often this topic is approached together with the question of food security crops. Communitybased activities rarely make a difference between neglected crops and non-neglected ones.From the community point of view, such crops are seen as traditional. They are cultivatedmostly by women and children in gardens or separate fields, and not at all neglected by smallfarmers. They are indeed neglected by formal research and development activities.

With regard to rare breeds, there was an increasing interest during the last decade inneglected species such as camels, buffaloes and donkeys, or species of regional importancesuch as yaks and the South American camelides. These efforts include a range of actors -


7

international institutes such as ICIMOD, universities, and NGOs such as the League forPastoral Peoples. In the promotion of these species cultural values and farming systems,resource endowments of farms and economics have to be taken into account. For example ifa group of animal keepers provided remounts for an army and this army does no longer needriding animals, the local people have to adapt their economies and it can be that theimportance of these riding animals can decline and subsequently fewer of these animals willbe kept.

Domestication of wildlife and exploitation of the various potentials of wildlife is done invarious intensities - from straight domestication (such as the cane-rat in West Africa), tohunting for meat (very common in West Africa and parts of Asia) to trophy hunting and gameviewing. The exploitation of wildlife as a common property resource has attracted a range ofNGOs (e.g. the Campfire programme in Zimbabwe, IIED and ODI) as well as main donorssuch as BMZ, DFID, and the French Ministry for Co-operation, the World Bank and GEF. TheLEAD initiative (Livestock and Environment and Development) brings many donors andimplementing agencies together and has recently started work on complementarity ofconventional livestock and wildlife use.

Market development

Some organisations discuss the question how to develop markets for under-utilised cropsand breeds, or their products. Traditional crops have their traditional uses and traditionalcustomers who know their products well. Globalisation, the launch of Northern products onSouthern markets and orientation towards the rich and dominating North have led to achange in food habits in many countries.In some cases, modern food is more convenient than traditional food, but in others, thetraditional product offers more convenience. Nutritional value is often higher in traditionalspecies and varieties, but advertising and images play a more important role in food habits.The image of poverty is often attached to traditional food, in contrast to the modern food ofthe rich. There are chances, however, to promote traditional food together with culturalidentity cherished in many Southern countries. Local or regional markets offer moreopportunities, to which small farmers has usually better access than to export markets.

So far, the more arduous creation of new - preferably export - markets is in the foreground ofsupporting activities. For example, most arid areas of the planet have been searched forfruits and nuts for genetic improvement; Israeli research institutes have developed a numberof them for production in Israel and marketing in the North, with little or no benefit sharingwith the farming communities that have developed the crop in the first place.

New markets offer security only for a single variety or crop but do not address the problem ofgenetic erosion as such.

Specific products of farm animal biodiversity are rare. There are some moves to marketindigenous chicken as special produce (e.g. African Fowl in South Africa) for the domesticmarket. Other complexes are at the fringes of agrobiodiversity such as the use of wildlife forphoto-safaris or trophy hunting, but this is rarely to the benefit of smallholders. In thecommercial sector in Southern Africa, the importance of wildlife species for farm incomeincreased sharply in recent years and exceeds in some areas the income from domesticstock. Organisations such as Campfire, DFID, IIED are working in this sphere.

Incentive measures

A farmer will not grow a crop variety or species or raise rare breeds only because it would bea contribution to the conservation of genetic diversity. Experiences with incentive measures


8

are rare and it is doubtful whether it is a sustainable approach to pay farmers for growingdiversity.

Generally a greater diversity in farmers fields means greater food security and quality of foodfor the family, especially in marginal areas that have little access to markets. Organisationslike ITDG, Li-BIRD, REMERFI, members of GRENAN and SSSP in Africa that work directlywith communities could contribute to the question as to why farmers participate and therebygive an indication what kind of incentives growers need.

When discussing incentives, the question of disincentives should not be omitted; it mighthave a greater impact than any incentive. The mainstream concentrates on only a fewspecies, on monoculture, on productivity with regard to specific products. Farm subsidies,credits, research, input and output marketing, veterinary or phytosanitary export regulationsall discriminate against traditional crops and rare breeds raised by smallholders. The lobby ofagrobiodiversity conservers is small and its economic power non-existent compared to thelobby and economic power of the mainstream agribusiness.

Farmers, under the guidance of scientists and breeders, could be involved in theregeneration of genetic material of gene banks. This approach could help gene banks toregenerate and evaluate their material under in situ conditions, which is an incentive itself.

Incentives could also come from governments in order to fulfil their commitments of theGlobal Plan of Action. Politically the role of the farmer as a conserver would have to berecognised. This could be achieved by allowing farmers to experiment and breed freely withgenetic material given to them. The legal situation limits this approach.

Generally, it is critical that funds for in situ conservation but also for ex situ work in genebanks are very limited. Also the GPA does not provide funding. There is a definite need formore financial support from GEF and others.

With respect to animals, an incentive could be the support for breeding associations. In thepast such support was given by projects implemented e.g. by the German AgriculturalSociety (DLG). However, breeding societies tend to emphasise production rather thanbiodiversity, and therefore it is doubtful whether such incentives really contribute tomaintaining or enhancing farm animal biodiversity.

Marketing of products, e.g. camel milk is an important but not yet well-developed incentive.More experiences were made with incentives in wildlife management. The experiences inEastern and Southern Africa in sharing the proceeds of nature parks with local people arewell documented. Organisations such as the Campfire Programme, IIED, IUCN or DFID haveinitiated, carried out or financed studies or are implementing programme regardingcommunity based wildlife management. However, results are sobering. Apparently,communities and smallholders are benefiting little from the present mechanisms, whereasthe private wildlife industry in southern Africa is booming.

Participatory breeding (PB)

Breeding by selection and cross-pollination are skills many farming communities haddeveloped for centuries. These skills can be revitalised and developed in order to involvefarmers in breeding programs at an early stage and to encourage them to experimentthemselves. A greater genetic diversity in the fields would be the result. Also, the breeding ofvarieties that are unacceptable to growers or consumers could be avoided.

PB has gained some ground in several CGIAR Centres (ICRISAT, CIAT, ICARDA); however,it remains a side activity that has an important public relations function and is far from being


9

mainstream. To encourage and to empower farmers to breed goes contrary to the policytrend that strengthens the position of the seed industry to take over breeding and the seedsupply. Therefore, it might be a chance to encourage farmers to work on crops that have notbeen of any interest to companies and which have not been bred commercially. Simplemethods might bring about relatively great improvements in a short time. CBDC, Li-BIRD,MASIPAG and SEARICE practice participatory breeding.

With respect to animals, a clear-cut distinction between mere reproduction and breeding isdifficult. Calves of dairy-cows may be not regularly reared, where farmers are moreinterested in getting their cows into lactation than in rearing calves, which need to be fed for4 or 5 years before they start producing. In small stock, young males, sometimes less than 6months old, serve the females. In such systems there is no deliberate selection of animals.Adapted breeds are developed and maintained by natural selection. However, in systemswith a better resource endowment, a purposeful selection of males takes place, at least inanimal species that are highly valued. Males not desired for breeding, but left in the herd areoften castrated. These male animals are fattened or used for transport and draft purposes.Breeding animals may be exchanged directly, or indirectly by herd splitting (also a method ofrisk reduction) or by bride price or dowry payments.

NGO support for breeding is rare. Mostly, the objective is to produce ”better” animals. Sincecrossbreeding is a quicker way of reaching this goal, farm animal diversity may beendangered. A situation may develop where animals loose their adaptation to localenvironments, rather than improve it.

Role of farmers

Farmers, men and women, are the users of seeds and the first to decide what to grow whenthey have a choice of crops and varieties. In situ conservation cannot be done without themand the role of women in seed storage and seed selection has been pointed out many times.

Generally, farmers are closer to local organisations than to large international organisations.The role of farmers is strong in CBDC partner projects, ITDG projects, LI-BIRD andSEARICE and Green Foundation.

The more scientific, in the traditional sense, the activities of an organisation are, the lessfarmers are involved in the development and decision making process but are onlyconfronted with the results.

With respect to animals, wherever deliberate selection of breeding animals is practiced,farmers/pastoralists have their own criteria. This can be the milk yield of the mother, physicalconstitution of animals, or temperament, colour, horn size or –shape, and can have a culturalsignificance or used as external marker for other characteristics (walking ability, ease ofherding, strong herd instinct, good milker etc.). Farmers often have a very goodunderstanding of adaptation. It is more often extensionists, administrators or policy decisionmakers that need to be convinced of the need for and the merits of animals adapted to theenvironment, in contrast to those animals who can grow fast, lay plenty of eggs or have ahigh milk yield, but only under ideal conditions. Organisations such as the League forPastoral Peoples try to promote the maintenance of indigenous breeds. They also stress thecultural value of particular species or breeds.

Seed fairs and community seed banks

To create pride and interest in a community’s diversity, seed fairs and community seedbanks are very useful tools. Access to varieties is open to everyone especially the resourcepoor and experiences can be shared. ITDG, CBDC partners, Li-BIRD , MASIPAG and Green


10

Foundation have experiences and encourage the establishment of community seed banks.Formal seed or gene banks theoretically are open to all, but this access is rarely used.

As animals cannot as easily be stored as seeds or other reproducible parts of plants, thereare no community animal genetic diversity banks. For pastoralists, herd splitting andreciprocal loan of animals with friends and relatives is a means of spreading risk in case ofdrought or disease. However, these mechanisms are losing importance. Major donors havediscussed the possibilities to buy animals in pastoral areas during droughts, to feed them ongovernment ranches and to sell or return them after the drought. Successful implementationof such schemes is so far not reported.

Some NGOs, such as Oxfam, Acord or Farm Africa, and funding agencies, such as IFADtried to restock impoverished pastoral families after drought or to distribute animals on creditto poor people. The experience of such ventures is mixed, and it contributes to maintainingfarm animal genetic diversity only in a meaningful way if local adapted breeds are used.

Publications and public awareness

Some organisations, especially CGIAR Centres and FAO publish information material onagrobiodiversity issues and cover a broad range of topics. Most of this is directed at thescientific community and policy decision makers. Farmers, development workers, extensionor community workers are the primary target group of nongovernmental organisationsworking at national level. Some very informative books come from ITDG. The policy debateat international level is covered by GRAIN, RAFI and IPGRI publications.

The general public is rarely informed about the problem and consequence of genetic erosionand related issues. Printed materials, videos and the Internet are probably not the primarysource of information in rural areas. Mouth to mouth information, the advice of extensionworkers and radio transmissions are more important. Information on varieties is distributed inshops that sell agricultural inputs. Similar information on traditional varieties would be usefulbut examples are rare.

At the policy level, information on the aims of the GPA and CBD are plenty (by IPGRI, FAO,GRAIN; RAFI; ITDG). The incentive to read them is probably not very great unless someoneis directly involved.

The problem of genetic erosion is not yet a regular issue in agricultural schools anduniversities. Publications, which are directly aimed at development workers and project staff,are missing especially in local languages.

Animal genetic resources are rarely a topic. At the conceptual level, publications by FAO, byODI, or IIED are of high standard, but there is a lack of more popular leaflets or brochures.The importance of the adaptation is increasingly a subject in courses on tropical animalproduction in colleges and university.

Workshops and seminars

Workshops and seminars are organised by almost all organisations for different targetgroups.

Practical advice is rarely linked with information on the legal and international framework inwhich the activities take place and political conditions are not discussed with practitioners.


11

Training and capacity development

Training and capacity development are popular elements of many organisations. The GPAcalls for capacity building at all levels, and the farmers or community level seem to be lessdeveloped. All CGIAR Centres have strong training activities and reach a great number ofcurrent and future scientists and decision makers. In Germany, DSE trains a group ofselected scientists in genetic resource management every year. Training of farmers is not apriority for them. This is better achieved by NGOs like CBDC, ITDG, Li-BIRD, GreenFoundation and SEARICE.

Networking

Networks are based on regions, crops or topics. They integrate germplasm collectors,curators, researchers, breeders and users that focus on specific crop gene pools. Theyeffectively promote collaboration, allow better use of under-exploited collections and providesupport to crop improvement programmes.

IPGRI offers crop specific networks and regional networks like WANA, REMERFI,TROPIGEN, and REDARFIT. It also supports an NGO Network for Africa. FAO supportsregional networking especially in the SADC region mainly on sorghum and millets.

A lot of effort is taken to link different databases of gene banks and other institutions and tomake this information available for many users. Strong partners are SGRP at IPGRI andCHM at ZADI.

The present situation seems to be a rather academic and scientific approach, which probablyvery much depends on individuals who have the capacity to keep a network active. Specificnetworks for crops that have a commercial importance are stronger due to their directfinancial benefit in terms of breeding progress.

From a farmers perspective the benefit of database networks is not a direct one anddatabases are normally not his or her source of information. Nevertheless moderntechnology offers the possibility to exchange not only data but also experiences and couldtherefore benefit in an indirect manner.

Formal networks that exchange seeds in an organised way between farmers could not beidentified in developing countries.

The present crisis in Mozambique offers a chance to test the effectiveness of such networksin order to find out where samples of the genetic resources of this country are stored andhow they can be multiplied and returned. A similar positive experience was made after thecivil war in Rwanda.

With respect to AGR, the Global Strategy of FAO is the most important network. Among theNGOs, Rare Breed International and the League for Pastoral Peoples provide networks.Information exchange is the main emphasis of these networks.

Regional approach

Legal frameworks are also often negotiated in political and regional groups of countries toimprove co-operation, to co-ordinate activities and to minimise duplication of work. All majorregions have initiated networks on genetic resources issues. As many crops are of localimportance and agricultural practices and climatic conditions are similar. IPGRI supports


12

regional networking and CGIAR Centres are involved. Eastern Europe may be the leastdeveloped, as it started late. NGO networks often work on a regional basis as well.With respect to animals FAO supports regional and national networks. The CGIAR andassociated institutes with an eco-regional approach start to be active in this field. Forexample, ICIMOD supported a conference on yaks.


13

3 Bottlenecks and Challenges are Opportunities

3.1 Introduction

Hundreds of seminars, workshops and conferences at all levels have dealt with the politicaland theoretical background of genetic erosion and how to fight it. The practicalimplementation on the farmers’ fields is still lagging behind, mostly because the problem isnot yet understood as priority for sustainable development, and because it impliesquestioning the globally dominating agricultural paradigms.

At this point it seems appropriate to cite some of the statements made by the respondents tothe questionnaire when asked to name what they considered the greatest challenges inconservation and use of genetic diversity.

ITDG:

“To maintain the integrity and functions of agro-ecosystems and the sustainable use of allagricultural biodiversity at all levels”.

SEARICE:

“The tremendous rate in technological development that threatens PGR diversity rather thanimproves it, that narrows down diversity instead of maintaining it, that puts business andscientists together at the centre rather than giving importance to the role of farmingcommunities”.

REMERFI:

“In Mesoamerica, plant genetic resources are threatened to extinction of genes, individualsor even populations. This is due to several factors which include deforestation, changes incropping system patterns, land use and consumption patterns, natural disasters related orunrelated to climatic changes, and replacement of traditional local varieties with morehomogeneous varieties that have greater production potential but have more narrow geneticbases.Perhaps the greater challenge for biodiversity has to do with land use. The destruction ofnatural environments, and the use of varieties with narrow genetic base coupled with the factthat there is decreasing support for the organisations that conserve plant genetic resourcesex situ.”

These statements could be summarised in the sense that the challenge in tackling theproblem of genetic erosion in plants and animals lies in the dramatic fact that it is exactly thattechnological development and the many changes that it implies and which was (and still is)promoted as progress that is the very factor which endangers the sustainability of ourproduction system in terms of environmental integrity. To find the balance betweenconservation and use and technological development is the challenge. In other words: Howcan diversity-oriented agricultural production and modern, conventional (industrial)production coexist?

The activities result from the assessments made in the previous chapter. Obviously, not all ofthem will be possible to implement in the scope of the relatively limited resources. Thereforea selection was made that concentrates on seven major areas of activity, taking into account


14

the results of a study on the bottlenecks and needs expressed by GTZ projects in relation tothe management of agricultural biodiversity1.

When looking at the different concepts, strategies (like in situ or ex situ) and tools oforganisations active in conservation and use of PGR it is easy to note that they largely fall intwo categories: The formal (gene banks, botanic gardens, breeders, research institutes) andthe informal (NGO, biological/ecological breeders, gardeners, farmers and indigenousorganisations, peoples organisations). Both systems work side by side with some interaction.

The informal sector seems to have gained more recognition and importance in recent years.The development of participatory methods and the observation that the answers modernscience gave to the problems of small scale farmers did not always help to secure theirlivelihoods and sometimes even aggravated their distress, paved the ground for newapproaches that focused on the farmer and his or her community.

Policy framework

This development is reflected by AGENDA 21 (especially Chapters 14 and 15) whichdemands a greater participation of all actors especially farmers, indigenous people, womenand consumers. At the same time the Convention on Biological Diversity emphasizescommunity rights and in situ conservation and foresees the sharing of benefits.

FAO´s Global Plan of Action accords in situ conservation the same importance as ex situconservation and emphasizes capacity building at all levels.

Individuals in both informal and formal institutions welcome the trend towards participationand in situ conservation. The parallel existence and importance of ex situ collections is notquestioned and both approaches are seen as complementary. The earlier confrontationseems to have given way to the insight that both are needed and that all will benefit fromcooperation. The competition still exists when it comes to the allocation of funds but here too,joint lobbying for more financial assistance seems to be more effective.

To show the economic benefits of agrobiodiversity is very important for the justification ofpolicy or funding decisions. This can be in the areas of health, nutrition, food security andfood sovereignty, ecological sustainability or cultural identity. Decision makers need goodreasons why more funding must be given to the conservation of genetic alternatives for thefuture.

The environment and agrobiodiversity

The interaction between environment and diversity in farmers’ fields is little understood.Landraces need their specific environment, or specific production systems. In-situconservation as a farmer activity should take place in an environment that offers a variety ofgrowing conditions. “Modern” agriculture so far tends to monoculture with genetically uniformvarieties and abandons multicropping and intercropping with a range of species,microclimate management and fields with mixed varieties and landraces.

With respect to animals there is a strong trend to industrialized holdings, which can producecheap eggs, meat or milk, however, at high environmental cost.

1 Evy Thies: Bottlenecks and Needs of German Development Cooperation in the Field of Management ofAgricultural Biodiversity, GTZ, August 2000


15

A key question therefore is: How can both “modern” agriculture and sustainable productionmethods that enhance and protect diversity coexist and interact to their respectiveadvantage?

Unless the traditional sector with its evolving crop germplasm is also developed, it must beexpected that new modern varieties displace the traditional landraces. Modern agriculture orindustrialized production systems today need to be altered in a way that they conserve andmanage agrobiodiversity in a sustainable manner. The separation between production andconservation must be overcome.

Projects should be identified where production and conservation go hand in hand and wheretheir impact can be studied in detail. The involvement of land use planners could help identifyareas that suit agrobiodiversity protection and development.

Safety of conservation

Effectiveness of conservation is mainly a concern in plants as conservation efforts in animalsare normally not yet developed far enough to make its safety an urgent concern.

The safety of gene banks has been discussed and questioned many times. But how safe isin-situ conservation? Natural catastrophes such as hurricanes, floods, or armed conflicts canwipe out the genetic diversity of a large area. A back up system in gene banks providessome security.

From the point of view of gene banks, a regular renewal of material on farmers’ fields whereit originated or where conditions are similar would make the ex-situ collections safer,enhance farmer-scientist relations and allow adaptation of the gene bank material to theenvironment.

The geographic origins of resistant genetic material are often `hot spots´ where bothpathogen and host are present with a large and evolving diversity. Sampling the hostcaptures the resistance at that time but stops the evolutionary process. In-situ conservationmakes sure that host and pathogen evolve together. The speed of this change woulddetermine how much in-situ conservation is needed and how long a sample could rest in agene bank without being in danger of loosing the appropriate resistance, besides its viability.

Co-operation between farmers and scientists could generate useful data. Farmers orcommunities should be encouraged to use and freely experiment with genetic material whichwill give a good indication as to what they really need and where they see potentials.

Training

Scientists who were trained to train the extension worker who, in turn, were trained to trainfarmers, must recognize that they can both learn from the farmers, too. That alone is not aneasy task because it turns the system upside down.

The training of technicians who work with farmers on seed issues must be different from thatof breeders in large seed companies or in a research institute with a Green Revolutionapproach.

Similarly, animal breeders working in villages where sometimes the average size of dairyherds is smaller than two, have to apply different approaches than breeders working withfarms that raise several hundred or even thousand animals.It is necessary to relate biodiversity conservation to both natural resources conservation andproduction. The recreation of farmers’ multifunctional cropping systems and agro-ecological


16

management still contradicts the training most technicians usually receive. Organisationsinvolved in training should reorient their courses and make their content coherent with theagrobiodiversity agenda.

This is a task for agricultural projects in the first place, but is also important knowledge for thehealth sector, land use planning, forestry and fisheries. There is great need to clarify thattheir actions are related to conservation or loss of diversity and that this is not an isolatedissue for the gene bank specialist.

NGOs can play a vital role in linking farmers with scientists due to their experience inparticipation, and are often closer to the people, their language and needs. NGO staff needsappropriate training to do this and experiences should be shared and evaluated.

Development workers, project planners and implementers have to be sensibilised that themajority of the genetic wealth is found in the countries of the South and that genetic diversityis pivotal to global food security.

The role of development cooperation

Development cooperation has only recently asked the question of its own role in geneticerosion or conservation. Seed production, seed distribution, agricultural methods andcultivation systems were generally not looked at with the question in mind how this affectedgenetic diversity. What was introduced was regarded as better and those farmers that did notadopt it were laggards. Only slowly did the thought that farmers might have had a goodreason not to accept the proposed changes come into mind.

Household food security is often a result of diverse risk avoiding strategies and a wholesystem of security loops not easily recognized by an outsider. An assessment of negativeand positive, intended and unintended impacts of development projects on genetic diversityin the project area could be done by every organisation for the projects that wereimplemented e.g. in the last decade, and a good number of lessons learned.

Development experts at all levels should increase their awareness of the importance ofagrobiodiversity for food systems.

A closer look at the various organisations reveals that they run agrobiodiversity relatedprojects but rarely long term programmes with secure staff and funding. Projects are notenough to achieve a long-term goal like sustainable use and conservation of PGR and AGR.This situation is a result of lack of long-term funding.

Farmers´ decision making processes

Methodologies and techniques for the ex situ collections are standardized and wellresearched and documented. Access to the related information is relatively easy and aseveral projects focus on or include this aspect.

Many methodological and technical questions regarding in situ conservation are still open toa great degree and need to be answered to make the approach effective. It is not sufficient tojust let the farmers do what they always did. Approaches how this can be achieved must bestudied and developed because farming communities hold the key to in situ conservation andstill hold a vast source of genetic diversity in their seed systems.

Romanticising the farmer’s approaches to seed security or to traditional animal breeds isdangerous because it is easily forgotten that genetic resources in farmer’s fields and in thesurrounding environment are very often resources under stress. Environmental changes,


17

population pressure, economic insecurity and new markets have changed the conditions,and communities react by changing the varieties they use and the crops they plant.

When national policies favour high external animal husbandry systems, it needs a lot ofconviction (and a good resource portfolio) to stick to traditional breeds (and species) if otherbreeds/species are economically of advantage. Research is needed to find out how informalseed systems work, who the actors are and what influences them positively or negatively.Similarly, research is still needed regarding adaptation of animals to the environment andhow the adaptive capacities of animals can be maintained in formal animal breedingsystems.

It is not sufficient to collect and monitor diversity in farmer’s fields and to appreciate whatthey do and know. Insights in the decision-making processes, why farmers keep or discard avariety or an animal breed, are needed to develop a system that functions under changingcircumstances.

Benefit sharing

Whereas some benefit sharing agreements have been signed between communities orgovernments and pharmaceutical companies, examples in the agricultural sector are rare, ifat all existent. Since benefit sharing is one of the three aims of the CBD, efforts to put it intopractice are urgently needed.

Cultural change and new markets

Agricultural diversity and cultural identity are closely linked. Thus, cultural change must betaken into account when looking for possible uses of biodiversity. When eating habitschange, other crops or varieties are wanted and find a market. Whereas e.g. urbanisation issometimes seen as a danger for diversity it can also be used to create new markets for aproduct. However, their agrobiodiversity is often limited, as just one or very few species orproducts can be promoted. Approaches that link cultural identity and food diversity couldsubstantially contribute to agrobiodiversity conservation. Experience can be found in the pastof a few countries that have implemented politics of economic isolation. In the wake ofglobalisation, cultural identity seems to pick up momentum as an associated phenomenon.

The growing urban population in developing countries can be a good market not only forexotic food of a Western or Northern culture but also for traditional food when linked topositive emotions of culture and tradition. Cultural and sometimes spiritual dimensions needto be addressed in this context.

New markets in the export sector are attractive but imply a danger of unpredictabledependencies. Furthermore, many traditional dishes and the needed varieties areappreciated only locally; it may need great efforts to develop a demand elsewhere.

With respect to animal products, it is undisputed that the demand for meat, milk and eggs willincrease faster than the demand for plant products. Much of the supply will come fromindustrialized products, which need fast growing uniform animals, and these trends pose aserious threat to animal genetic diversity. Industrialized animal production tends to undercutprices, and lower prices make also smallholder and pastoral animal production lessprofitable. Moreover, the industrialized animal production has strong negative environmentimpacts and relies heavily on external inputs. The use of drugs and growth promoters canlead to residues and thus to unhealthy or unsafe food. A strict enforcement of food safetyregulations, and laws, that internalise environmental costs, can already reduce some of thenegative trends. Although traditional animal breeds can rarely produce other marketable


18

products than ”modern” breeds in industrialized production systems, they often can offer abetter quality of products.

Breeding with farmers

Breeding techniques at the community level are different from industrialised productionsystems. Farmers have developed their own techniques but a lot of this knowledge is lost.One goal must be to study and save what is still there. But it is equally important to see whatthese community techniques can realistically achieve. Furthermore, farmers’ breeding goalsneed to be clarified.

Where is this knowledge in a farming community and how could scientists help farmers tobetter achieve their goals?

Should one breed for disease and pest resistance or for tolerance to the same problem?Since we know that resistance will break down sooner or later, would it not make more senseto breed for tolerance, which allows for longer lasting non-harmful co-existence?How did farmers over the centuries manage to keep their seeds free from viruses? Theydidn’t clean up their seed by tissue culture but used different ecological environments andaltitudes and maybe managed some level of co-existence between virus and crop.

Is agricultural research prepared to invest into these questions because the decision to breedfor tolerance for example will not please the private sector that wants to sell agrochemicals?

These questions relate to fundamental decisions in priorities and aims of the agriculturalsector as a whole. The evaluation of farmer-breeder exchange and breeding programs withcrops or breeds that have not been bred commercially using simple techniques that farmerscan apply, would help to show the benefits of participatory plant breeding.

With respect to animals, breeding activities as such are straightforward, and selection willnormally be restricted to male animals. With decreasing farm size and very small animalholdings, breeding organisation needs to be revisited. Breeding activities can be supportedby facilitating access to appropriate male animals. Where artificial insemination is practised,it is important that - apart from inevitable exotic high producing animals - local animals arealso offered.

There is a big challenge to initiate a debate with research institutions and farmers on theaims and priorities of breeding and their influence in agricultural diversity. With respect toanimals, breeding organisations and their effects on farm animal diversity need to beexamined.

Gene banks and farmers

Gene banks are for plant genetic resources only. Linking breeding programmes with farmerswould create an increased demand on the gene banks to provide genetic material for thefarmers to work with. Local farmers must be considered a bona fide user of gene bankaccessions. How could gene banks be prepared for this? With this approach an enormouswealth of genetic diversity would be ensured. Ownership would remain where selection takesplace; in this case the community level and seeds remain a common property as it hasalways been.

Gene banks should find ways to supply farmers with sufficient amount of seeds to work with.This is mainly a financial constraint and needs lobbying for additional funding or help to findthese funds from other donors.


19

Small community seed banks can serve local farmers better than large national orinternational gene banks but cannot store everything that is in the fields. Such a solutionfaces the same constraints and dangers as formal gene banks.

Safe methods for storage in and management of community seed banks need to beidentified. This can only be done in close cooperation with the community and seems to be agood field for South-to-South exchange of experiences. However, a solution that works inone place not necessarily works in another, let alone in a different society and culture.

What to conserve

What should we breed, conserve, use or adapt? Cultural erosion has swept away knowledgeand the simple belief that farmers can breed and develop varieties. This can hardly berepaired when it is too late.

It is clear that not everything under the sky can be conserved in seed banks and farmersfields. But: what will be needed in the future and who will determine what it will be? We donot know how changing environments will influence the decisions of what to grow where inthe near future. Climate change and UV light tolerance may change the cropping system of awhole region and will probably influence every farmer’s decision and every breeder’ssuccess. What seems important today may not be important in 20 or 50 years.

For the time being, the only way seems to recognize as many priorities as possible and tokeep as many genotypes as possible. This requires a large environmental diversity. And thatagain requires the work of many different people with different objectives and value systems.In the case of biodiversity conservation, uncoordinated action (in the sense that no one canclaim to have the answers) of many different players seems to be the right approach.Conservation as an activity of many everywhere offers the greatest security and leaves roomfor different priorities and alternatives.

With respect to animals, the need for in situ conservation is even greater than in plants. Agenerally accepted definition of rare and endangered breeds is due. As time frames foranimal breeding is generally longer than in plants and as animals are normally largerindividuals than plants, choices have to be made and a concentration on essential traits isnecessary. In contrast to plants, where some seeds can be stored and used decades afterstorage the conservation of animals needs to recognise the dynamic nature of animalbreeds. Furthermore, inbreeding can lead to stunt animals and reduced vitality of animals.Therefore it is problematic to conserve very small animal populations. Essentialcharacteristics need to be identified and animals that have these characteristics need to be”conserved” and not necessarily all breeds as defined as present.

Who sets the priorities? And for what time frame? This question could be answered for thepast and a critical look would maybe reveal some answers for the present and future.

Crisis management and relief

The often huge losses of seeds and animals in disaster situations, like wars, droughts,floods, or other crises are most often not met by relief and rehabilitation measures. The localusers of agrobiodiversity are not enabled to seize opportunities arising from internationalrelief operations. Conservation of plant and animal genetic resources in crisis situationsshould become a priority area of development cooperation. Needs and potentials should beanalysed.

The present crisis in Mozambique offers a chance to test the effectiveness of networks inorder to find out where samples of the genetic resources of this country are stored and how


20

they can be multiplied and returned. A similar positive experience was made after the civilwar in Rwanda.

With regard to drought relief for pastoralists, traditional approaches need to be evaluated andnew approaches developed.

Biotechnology, documentation, IPR and legislation

Biotechnology

To assume that biotechnology offers the possibility to keep “DNA Libraries” to conservegenes not genotypes, is absurd from a farmer’s perspective. Farmers can’t take genes froma library and assemble them in plants and they can do it even less with animals. How couldfarmers more directly be involved in the use of biotechnology and in the decision making asto where it is used and with whose priorities, would be interesting to find out and could helpnarrow the gap between science and fields. The use of so-called advanced breedingtechniques offers much less for animal breeding and therefore should not be a high priority.

Documentation and IPR

A lot of activities and projects document diversity in farmer’s fields, including relatedknowledge and technologies. The question who is making use of the documentation is veryimportant if one wants to motivate farmers and indigenous people to participate and sharetheir knowledge. Does the publication of such information protect them against bio piracy? Oris it better for them to keep the knowledge to themselves? How can it be secured that a justsharing of benefits is provided for? The models so far are rather hypothetical and theirpractical implementation at the farmers’ level is unsolved to a large extend. These questionsare very important in the case of plants but of much less importance in the case of farmanimals.

Legislation

A lot of effort goes into helping developing countries to develop a legal seed system similarto that of Western Europe or the US. Such legal systems, however, include the demand foruniformity that has been clearly identified as one important reason for genetic erosion.Alternative models that allow for more genetic diversity in varieties without concessions togermination and plant health might serve better (not only in the South). A critical look andscientific evidence is needed to solve this. Do farmers have the impression that uniformity ina variety helps them get a better and (sometimes more important) safer harvest? What arethe differences in the various food deficient areas? What is the position of food processors?How do farmers define a variety and is it important for them to have a definition whenvarieties change over time and are constantly adapted? Would not a greater flexibility helpconservation efforts rather than hamper it?

Legislation should also find a way to recognise community ownership, according to theprovisions of the CBD. A sense of ownership will create a sense of responsibility and prideand therefore secure diversity through cultural or regional identity.

All mechanisms that grade, define, control or discriminate against what is not “normal” aremechanisms that lead to a loss in diversity. Grades for shape, colour, size and so on do notleave enough room for alternatives and narrow them down. A critical look in terms of what isuseful and what not is needed, especially in food industry and processing could bring thediscussion on diversity into this influential sector.

The growing influence of trans-national seed companies, biotechnology enterprises andinternational trade in commodities shapes the legal situation worldwide. A farmers anddiversity oriented perspective is urgently needed to counterbalance developments that will


21

further threaten agricultural diversity by these forces. The GTZ Sectoral Project could providethis.

Governments and institutions need advice in terms of policy decisions they have to take.Especially in the field of biotechnology, seed legislation, access and sharing of benefits.Exchange between the different players are very important, with special attention to the roleof communities, seed companies and the food processing sector.

Networking

A number of networks exists both in the informal and formal sector. Most of them areregional networks but some centre around crops or animals and specific questions.Regarding animals, the focus is on information exchange. However, strengths andweaknesses of existing networks are hardly known.

The Southern African region seems to be very suitable because many initiatives already existand the region has a number of similar conditions.

The participation of communities and farmers in these networks and their infrastructure haveto be strengthened by financial assistance and information exchange.

The establishment of a network that exchange seeds between projects and other sources inan organised manner offers the opportunity for projects to experiment and increase diversity.Interested partners and projects could be encouraged to join existing networks.

Publication

A great number of publications exists but have seldom reached the project level not to speakof the farmers. Experience shows that for them it is important to discuss the issue of diversityfor their community and to bring in their experiences before they can get involved out of theirowns interest.

Information brochures on the issues of genetic diversity in agriculture, the reasons for andthe dangers of genetic erosion are available at the GTZ project on Agrobioidversity. They canserve as a basis for discussion with partners, field workers and farmers.


22

Abbreviations

ACORD Agency for Co-Operation and Research for DevelopmentAnGR Animal Genetic ResourcesBAZ Federal Centre for Breeding Research on Cultivated CropsBMVEL Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Food and AgricultureBMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentBRG Bureau Des Ressources GénétiquesCampfire Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous

ResourcesCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBDC Community Biodiversity Development and ConservationCGIAR Consultative Group of International Agricultural ResearchCGRFA Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureCHM Clearing House MechanismCIAT Centro International de Agricultura TropicalCIMMYT Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz Y TrigoCIP Centro International de La PapaCIRAD Centre International de Recherche Agricole pour le DéveloppementDAD-IS Domestic Animal Documentation Information SystemDED German Development ServiceDFID Department for International DevelopmentDLG German Society for AgricultureDSE German Foundation for International DevelopmentEAAP European Association for Animal ProductionEU European UnionFAO Food and Agricultural OrganisationFARM Africa Food and Agriculture Research Management in AfricaFORUM U+E German NGO Forum Environment and DevelopmentGEF Global Environmental FacilityGEH German Society for Conservation of Old and Endangered BreedsGPA Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of

Plant Genetic ResourcesGRAIN Genetic Resources Action NetworkGRENAN Genetic Resource Network of African NGOsIARC International Agricultural Research CentresICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry AreasICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsIDRC International Development Research CentreIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIGR Information Centre for Genetic ResourcesIIED International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentILRI International Livestock Research InstituteIPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources InstituteITC International Trypanotolerance CentreITDG Intermediate Technology Development GroupIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureLEAD Livestock Environment and DevelopmentLI-BIRD Local Initiative for Biodiversity, Research and Development


23

MASIPAG Farmer/Scientist Partnership for DevelopmentNRI Natural Resources InstituteODI Overseas Development InstituteOxfam Oxford Famine ReliefPGR Plant Genetic ResourcesRAFI Rural Advancement Foundation InternationalRBI Rare Breed InternationalREDAFIT Andean Network of Plant Genetic ResourcesSADC South Africa Development CommunityREMERFI Central American Network for Plant Genetic ResourcesSAVE Safeguard for Agricultural Varieties In EuropeSEARICE South East Asia Regional Institute for Community EducationSGRP System-Wide Genetic Resources ProgrammeSINGER System-Wide Information Network on Genetic ResourcesSSDP Sustainable Seed Development ProgrammeSSSP Sustainable Seed Supply ProgrammeTROPIGEN Amazonian Network of Plant Genetic ResourcesUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeWB World BankWGTRR Working Group on Traditional Resource RightsWRI World Resources InstituteWTO World Trade OrganisationZADI German Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture

Documents

Conservation and Use of Plant and Animal Biodiversity in …hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/gtz_challenges.pdf · 2014-05-28 · Whereas ex situ conservation in gene banks is a useful tool for