what do we have to lose? generating crop diversity and threat monitoring information to support poor...
Post on 23-Aug-2014
643 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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.
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
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?
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.
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%
6
Global network supporting OFM?
OFM practitioners PGRFA managers and policy-makers
95%
86%
5%
14%
YesNo
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Evidence for genetic erosion
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)
Changes in cultivation of maize hybrids and landraces over time in southwest China
(Jingson Li, 2012)
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
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)
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
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
• 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
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.
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
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
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)
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
• 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
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.”
• 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
• 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
International Expert MeetingHuacanyo, Peru
Approach
Monitoring required at different levels:• Genetic • Species/variety• Landscape• Traditional knowledge and cultural practices
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;
Thank you
www.bioversityinternational.org
top related